We’ve already seen this recently with the re-evaluation of CWEs related to 
password complexity and other password-related policies. Last year, some of our 
cryptography entries were modified to better allow for the fact that something 
that’s safe today might not be tomorrow.

- Steve


From: Kurt Seifried <k...@seifried.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 2:45 PM
To: Hatfield, Arthur <arthur_hatfi...@homedepot.com>
Cc: Jarzombek, Joe <sjoeja...@gmail.com>; Wissmann, Rob 
<rob.wissm...@nteligen.com>; Alec J Summers <asumm...@mitre.org>; CWE Research 
Discussion <cwe-research-list@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: CWE/CAPEC Definitions

There’s also changes in standards, expectations and so on. 20 years ago 2FA was 
exotic, now it’s common place and in 20 more years I bet lack of 2FA is classed 
as a vulnerability.

-Kurt






On Jul 14, 2022, at 11:25 AM, Hatfield, Arthur 
<arthur_hatfi...@homedepot.com<mailto:arthur_hatfi...@homedepot.com>> wrote:

I think it may be best to split the difference by describing weaknesses as 
flaws that are potentially exploitable to cause undesired operation of the 
system and describing vulnerabilities as the subset of weaknesses that are 
provably exploitable; that allows the possibility that some exploits are either 
extant but not generally known to exist, or would exist if someone applied 
themselves to finding an exploit technique.


RT Hatfield, BS CS, CCITP, CISSP
Staff Cybersecurity Analyst
Lead, Notifications and Operations Service Line
Cyber Threat Intelligence
The Home Depot



From: SJ Jazz <sjoeja...@gmail.com<mailto:sjoeja...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 1:13 PM
To: Rob Wissmann <rob.wissm...@nteligen.com<mailto:rob.wissm...@nteligen.com>>
Cc: Alec J Summers <asumm...@mitre.org<mailto:asumm...@mitre.org>>, CWE 
Research Discussion 
<cwe-research-list@mitre.org<mailto:cwe-research-list@mitre.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CWE/CAPEC Definitions
Actually, being listed as a CVE is not the criteria for being a vulnerability.  
Only vulnerabilities catalogued as CVEs are 'known vulnerabilities'. There are 
actual instances of uncatalogued (unpublished) vulnerabilities; some are in 
proprietary or intelligence organization's libraries, and some are held by 
malicious actors for future exploitation (at which point they will be known as 
zero-day vulnerabilities).

It is the existence of an exploit designed to take advantage of a weakness (or 
multiple weaknesses) and achieve a negative technical impact that makes a 
weakness a vulnerability.

It is not the state of being publicly known or catalogued that makes it a 
vulnerability.

...Joe



On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:50 AM Rob Wissmann 
<rob.wissm...@nteligen.com<mailto:rob.wissm...@nteligen.com>> wrote:
Regarding the circular definitions, it has always struck me that weaknesses are 
flaws that may or may not be exploitable to cause negative impact whereas 
vulnerabilities are flaws known to be exploitable to cause negative impact.

A rewrite of the definitions to match this concept:

Vulnerability
A flaw in a software, firmware, hardware, or service component known to be 
exploitable to cause a negative impact to the confidentiality, integrity, or 
availability of an impacted component or components (from CVE®)
Weakness
A flaw in a software, firmware, hardware, or service component that may or may 
not be exploitable to cause a negative impact to the confidentiality, 
integrity, or availability of an impacted component or components.

Vulnerabilities must be known to be exploitable because of the CVE criteria 
[cve.org]<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.cve.org/About/Process*CVERecordLifecycle__;Iw!!M-nmYVHPHQ!NfnLPvDdkiRWH3L2xvMa9KYle-CdclOb75YztG_5ExXRad3d_EIacRd2LMB8bBeLbczXRpgZviQ46Vn0fy3hmNg21w$&source=gmail-imap&ust=1658424336000000&usg=AOvVaw2SeZfZHtLqix20ioUiz44s>:
 “Details include but are not limited to affected product(s); affected or fixed 
product versions; vulnerability type, root cause, or impact; and at least one 
public reference.”

An example of a flaw that may or may not be a vulnerability is an integer 
overflow. It might result in a vulnerability, or it might not. That’s a 
weakness.

Thanks

From: Alec J Summers <asumm...@mitre.org<mailto:asumm...@mitre.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 1:09 PM
To: CWE Research Discussion 
<cwe-research-list@mitre.org<mailto:cwe-research-list@mitre.org>>
Subject: CWE/CAPEC Definitions

Dear CWE Research Community,

I hope this email finds you well.

Over the past few months, the CWE/CAPEC User Experience Working Group has been 
working to modernize our programs through a variety of activities. One such 
activity is harmonizing the definitions on our sites for some of our key 
terminology including weakness, vulnerability, and attack pattern. As CWE and 
CAPEC were developed separately and on a different timeline, some of the terms 
are not defined similarly, and we want to address that.

We are seeking feedback on our working definitions:

Vulnerability
A flaw in a software, firmware, hardware, or service component resulting from a 
weakness that can be exploited, causing a negative impact to the 
confidentiality, integrity, or availability of an impacted component or 
components (from CVE®)
Weakness
A type of flaw or defect inserted during a product lifecycle that, under the 
right conditions, could contribute to the introduction of vulnerabilities in a 
range of products made by different vendors
Attack Pattern
The common approach and attributes related to the exploitation of a weakness, 
usually in cyber-enabled capabilities

Note: CVE’s definition for ‘vulnerability’ was agreed upon after significant 
community deliberation, and we are not looking to change it at this time.

We are hoping to publish new, improved definitions on our websites at the end 
of the month. Please provide thoughts and comments by Tuesday, July 26.

Cheers,
Alec

--
Alec J. Summers
Center for Securing the Homeland (CSH)
Cyber Security Engineer, Principal
Group Lead, Cybersecurity Operations and Integration
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
MITRE - Solving Problems for a Safer World™




--
Regards,

Joe

Joe Jarzombek
C 703 627-4644


INTERNAL USE

Reply via email to