The Hidden Danger of Duplicate CVEs: Are You Wasting Time on Redundant Security Patches?
In the fast-paced world of cybersecurity, a critical vulnerability alert can send IT and security teams scrambling. You identify the threat, find the patch, and deploy it. But a week later, another alert appears for a different vulnerability—with a different CVE identifier—that affects the same system and sounds suspiciously similar. This isn’t déjà vu; it’s a growing problem in the security industry: overlapping vulnerability reports.
Multiple security firms are increasingly assigning separate CVEs to what is essentially the same underlying security flaw. This practice, while often unintentional, creates significant confusion, wastes valuable resources, and can dangerously skew risk assessments. Understanding why this happens is the first step toward building a more resilient and efficient vulnerability management program.
Why Overlapping CVE Reports Happen
The issue of duplicate or overlapping CVEs isn’t born from a single cause but rather a combination of factors related to research, disclosure, and even marketing.
Independent and Parallel Discovery: It’s common for multiple security research teams to investigate the same popular software simultaneously. Two different firms can independently discover the same bug without any knowledge of the other’s work. When they report their findings through separate channels, they may each be assigned a unique CVE identifier, leading to two reports for one problem.
Branding and the Race for Recognition: In a competitive market, being the first to report a major vulnerability can be a significant marketing win. Some firms may “brand” a vulnerability with a catchy name and logo, a practice that almost guarantees a dedicated CVE. This can lead to a rush to publish, sometimes without fully coordinating with other researchers who may be working on the same issue.
Slightly Different Attack Vectors: Sometimes, two reports describe nearly identical flaws but are triggered through slightly different means or affect different components of the same library. While technically distinct, the remediation is often the same: a single patch that resolves the core weakness. For the security team on the ground, this distinction is academic and only adds to the noise.
Complex Coordinated Disclosure: The process of reporting a vulnerability to a vendor and a CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) can be complex. Miscommunication or a breakdown in this process can easily result in multiple CVEs being issued for the same root cause.
The Real-World Impact: Alert Fatigue and Wasted Effort
For security professionals on the front lines, the consequences of this trend are tangible and detrimental. The noise generated by redundant alerts can lead to several negative outcomes.
First and foremost is the risk of “patching fatigue” and wasted resources. Teams may spend hours investigating, testing, and deploying a patch for a CVE, only to repeat the entire process for a second CVE that is resolved by the very same update. This duplicated effort consumes time and budget that could be allocated to addressing other unique threats.
Second, it creates confusion in risk prioritization. A system flagged with two “critical” CVEs appears to be at a higher risk than a system with one. If both CVEs point to the same flaw, the perceived risk is artificially inflated, making it difficult for teams to accurately prioritize which assets need the most urgent attention.
Finally, this confusion can complicate compliance and auditing efforts. Proving that a system is patched becomes more difficult when auditors have to reconcile multiple CVE reports against a single patch record.
Actionable Security Tips: How to Cut Through the Noise
While the industry works toward better coordination, security teams must adapt. Blindly chasing every CVE is no longer a viable strategy. Instead, a more investigative approach is required.
Look Beyond the CVE Identifier: Don’t stop at the CVE number and its severity score. Dig into the technical details of the advisory. Compare the descriptions of the vulnerabilities. Are they discussing the same flawed function, code library, or logic?
Focus on the Patch: The vendor’s patch notes are often the ultimate source of truth. Does the vendor release one patch to fix multiple reported CVEs? If so, you can confidently treat them as a single remediation event. Prioritize the patch, not the CVE count.
Analyze the Root Cause (CWE): Pay attention to the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) associated with the vulnerability. If two different CVEs share the same CWE and affect the same software component, there’s a high probability they are related.
Leverage Smart Vulnerability Management Tools: Modern security platforms are getting better at de-duplicating and correlating vulnerability data. These tools can often automatically group related CVEs, providing a clearer, more actionable picture of your true risk posture.
Ultimately, navigating the modern threat landscape requires a shift in mindset. Instead of simply reacting to a list of CVEs, effective security teams must focus on understanding the underlying weaknesses in their systems and applying the most efficient and comprehensive fixes. By doing so, you can cut through the noise, save valuable time, and ensure your efforts are directed at genuine threats.
Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/security-firms-dispute-credit-for-overlapping-cve-reports/
