‍Read time: 5 minutes

The CPE Problem: When Precision Matters

The Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) system serves as the backbone for most vulnerability scanners, mapping vulnerabilities to affected software versions. When this system works correctly, it's invisible. When it fails, the consequences ripple through entire security operations.

Consider CVE-2024-23296, a vulnerability that NIST's National Vulnerability Database (NVD) initially cataloged incorrectly. The CVE description clearly indicated the vulnerability affected only iOS 17.4. However, the NVD's CPE data incorrectly associated this CVE with all iOS operating systems.

The result? Any device running iOS versions other than 17.4 would be flagged as vulnerable by scanners relying on CPE data. Security teams suddenly faced alerts for thousands of devices that were never actually at risk, triggering unnecessary emergency patching cycles and wasted resources.

This isn't an isolated incident—it's a systemic problem that affects vulnerability management across the industry.

The Severity Score Disconnect

Every CVE receives a severity score from the NVD, but software vendors often assign different severity ratings to the same vulnerabilities. These discrepancies aren't academic—they directly impact how IT teams prioritize their security efforts.

Red Hat, known for its methodical approach to vulnerability assessment, explains the challenge on their website: "For open source software shipped by multiple vendors, CVSS base scores may vary for each vendor's version, depending on the version they ship, how they ship it, the platform, and even how the software is compiled."

The vendor continues: "Software running standalone may suffer from a flaw, but its use within a product may preclude the vulnerable code from ever being used in a way that could be exploited."

Amazon echoes this sentiment in their vulnerability documentation: "Amazon Linux evaluates each CVE for their applicability and impact on our products. Our CVSS scores may differ from NVD and other vendors because of the characteristics of our software, such as versions, infrastructure platforms, default configurations, or build environments."

When Developers Give Up

The frustration with inaccurate vulnerability scoring reached a breaking point for developer Fedor Indutny, author of one of GitHub's most popular utilities with 17 million weekly downloads. When a CVE received an alarming 9.8 severity score—a rating Indutny strongly disputed with convincing technical arguments—the process to challenge the assessment proved so bureaucratic and frustrating that he archived the entire project repository.

This incident, reported by Bleeping Computer, highlights how broken vulnerability assessment processes can drive talented developers away from open source contributions, ultimately making the entire ecosystem less secure.

The Growing Backlog Crisis

Even if CPE data were perfect, NIST faces a more fundamental challenge: capacity. The organization is currently about 10,000 CVEs behind in assigning CPE designations to vulnerable software packages.

This backlog means vulnerability scanners relying on CPE data are effectively blind to CVEs published after mid-February. In an environment where new vulnerabilities are discovered daily, this delay creates dangerous blind spots in security coverage.

A Better Approach to Vulnerability Management

Most vulnerability scanner vendors acknowledge the CPE problem and attempt to address it by augmenting CPE data internally. While this represents an improvement over raw CPE data, it still inherits the fundamental limitations of the underlying system.

At IT Agent, we've taken a different approach—one that requires significantly more engineering effort but delivers substantially better results. Instead of relying on CPE data, we pull software package information directly from individual vendors, along with their more informed severity assessments for each CVE.

This approach demands more development resources and presents countless technical challenges as we navigate vendor-specific quirks and data formats. However, it results in a vulnerability management platform that achieves zero false positives (excluding vendor errors themselves).

The Cost of Accuracy

Building accurate vulnerability correlation systems isn't easy. It requires senior development talent, complex integrations with dozens of vendor systems, and ongoing maintenance as vendors change their data formats and APIs. Many security companies choose the CPE route because it's simpler and more cost-effective in the short term.

But for organizations serious about security efficiency, the investment pays dividends. When security teams can trust their vulnerability data, they can focus on actual threats instead of chasing false positives. Patch management becomes more strategic and less reactive. Risk assessments become more accurate and actionable.

Moving Beyond Legacy Systems

The security industry's reliance on flawed CPE data represents a legacy approach that no longer serves modern IT environments. As infrastructure becomes more complex and attack surfaces expand, organizations need vulnerability management solutions that deliver precision, not just coverage.

The choice is clear: continue accepting false positives as an inevitable cost of vulnerability management, or demand better from security vendors. The technology exists to solve these problems—it just requires a commitment to engineering excellence over convenience.

For IT teams drowning in false positives, the path forward starts with asking vendors hard questions about their data sources and correlation methods. The answers will reveal whether you're getting accurate intelligence or just another layer of security theater.

‍