Vulnerability Management: Is It the Right Way to Do Security?

In April 2025, MITRE announced that the U.S. government would cease funding the CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) program, casting doubt on the future of one of the most widely recognized initiatives for identifying and tracking cybersecurity vulnerabilities. This announcement quickly sparked heated debates among cybersecurity professionals. While the funding issue was temporarily resolved, with MITRE receiving an extension for an additional 11 months, it raised a fundamental question: Is vulnerability management—relying on CVE identification—a sufficient and effective approach to securing our systems?

The Role of CVE in Vulnerability Management

The CVE program, established in 1999, has become a cornerstone of modern cybersecurity. The system enables organizations to identify, classify, and prioritize security vulnerabilities in software and hardware systems. CVEs are the standard for tracking known vulnerabilities and provide critical information to aid in patch management, threat detection, and risk mitigation.

However, the reliance on CVEs has been increasingly questioned. CVEs are assigned to vulnerabilities only after they have been discovered, often after the vulnerabilities have already been exploited by attackers. This reactive nature of CVE management places organizations in a constant state of catch-up, rather than empowering them to proactively secure their systems.

The Cost of CVE Management

Organizations invest significant resources into vulnerability management. According to a recent report based on interviews with security professionals, managing vulnerabilities is a major budget item for many enterprises. The process of identifying, tracking, patching, and verifying vulnerabilities consumes valuable time and effort across multiple departments, including IT, security, and operations.

The costs are not only financial; they also include the opportunity costs of diverting resources to handle vulnerabilities rather than focusing on more forward-thinking security measures. For many organizations, the sheer volume of vulnerabilities, especially those that are low-priority or not actively exploited, can lead to inefficiencies, such as “patch fatigue” and the failure to prioritize critical vulnerabilities.

Additionally, the absence of context in CVEs can lead to confusion about the real-world threat posed by a vulnerability. A CVE might be assigned to a vulnerability that is unlikely to be exploited in a specific environment, leading to wasted resources spent addressing a problem that isn't relevant to the organization.

Limitations of Vulnerability Management

Vulnerability management has clear limitations. The CVE system relies on discovering vulnerabilities and issuing patches—this is inherently reactive. Attackers, on the other hand, are often several steps ahead, identifying and exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities before they are publicly disclosed or assigned a CVE number.

A primary issue is that not all vulnerabilities are known or easily categorized. Researchers and cybercriminals alike can exploit previously undetected flaws, bypassing conventional security frameworks that depend heavily on CVEs. As cyberattacks become more sophisticated, the speed with which new exploits emerge challenges the effectiveness of the CVE model.

Moreover, the CVE system, while helpful, does not provide a comprehensive solution for defending against all cyber threats. It focuses primarily on patching known vulnerabilities, which does little to address attacks that exploit configuration flaws, social engineering, or vulnerabilities inherent in system design. Vulnerability management also tends to emphasize technical fixes rather than a holistic approach to security.

Different Approach to Cybersecurity: Pre-emptive Protection

While vulnerability management remains a critical part of any security strategy, it cannot be the only approach. To improve effectiveness and reduce dependency on the CVE system, organizations must adopt a more comprehensive, proactive cybersecurity model that incorporates pre-emptive protection.

Pre-emptive protection involves identifying and addressing security risks before they can be exploited. This can be achieved through various strategies:

1. Threat Intelligence and Behavioral Analysis: Leveraging threat intelligence to anticipate emerging threats and using behavioral analysis to detect anomalies can provide an additional layer of protection against attacks that exploit unknown vulnerabilities.

2. Zero Trust Security Models: Implementing a zero-trust approach, where trust is never assumed, ensures that even if attackers gain access to a network, they cannot easily move laterally or escalate privileges. This includes stringent authentication, continuous monitoring, and minimal access privileges.

3. Automated Security Tools: Tools that can automatically identify and mitigate potential threats before they are exploited can reduce the burden of patching and CVE management. These tools should focus not just on vulnerabilities but on broader attack vectors, including endpoint security and network traffic analysis.

4. Secure Development Practices: Shifting security left by incorporating secure coding practices during the development phase can drastically reduce the surface area for vulnerabilities in the first place. Integrating automated security testing and code analysis into the CI/CD pipeline can catch vulnerabilities early on.

5. AI and Machine Learning: Using AI to predict attack patterns based on historical data and evolving techniques can help organizations respond before vulnerabilities are exploited. Machine learning models can continuously improve, identifying threats that traditional methods might miss.

Conclusion

The debate over the future of CVE and its effectiveness as a primary tool in vulnerability management highlights the need for a shift in how we approach cybersecurity. While the CVE system is valuable for tracking known vulnerabilities, it is not sufficient in a rapidly evolving threat landscape. Organizations need to invest in more comprehensive, proactive approaches to security, incorporating pre-emptive measures alongside traditional vulnerability management.

As MITRE’s decision to stop funding the CVE program forces us to reconsider the foundations of vulnerability management, it also serves as a call to action for rethinking our approach to cybersecurity. To truly secure systems, we must adopt a holistic strategy that balances vulnerability management with proactive protection, leveraging advanced technologies and methodologies to stay one step ahead of potential threats. The time has come to stop merely reacting to vulnerabilities and start anticipating and preventing them before they occur.