Who Gets the Credit? Navigating CVE Disputes in Vulnerability Reporting
You’ve spent countless hours hunting, testing, and developing a proof-of-concept. You’ve discovered a significant security flaw in a widely used piece of software. After responsibly disclosing it, you wait for the recognition that validates your hard work: a CVE identifier assigned to your name. But what happens when another researcher reports the same bug, and the credit goes to them?
This frustrating scenario is at the heart of a growing issue within the cybersecurity community: CVE credit disputes. While the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) system is designed to create a standardized catalog of security flaws, its rules for assigning credit can feel arbitrary and unfair, leaving many researchers feeling their contributions have been erased.
Understanding these conflicts is crucial for any security professional who engages in vulnerability disclosure.
Why CVE Credit is More Than Just Bragging Rights
For a security researcher, a CVE ID is a fundamental unit of professional currency. It serves as:
- Proof of work and expertise.
- A key item on a resume or portfolio.
- A building block for a professional reputation.
- A factor in career advancement and compensation.
Losing credit for a legitimate discovery isn’t just disappointing; it can have a tangible impact on a researcher’s career and livelihood. This makes the fairness of the assignment process critically important.
The Core of the Conflict: The “First to Report” Rule
The central issue often boils down to a simple but problematic rule. Credit is typically awarded to the researcher who is first to report the vulnerability to the specific CVE Numbering Authority (CNA) that handles the case.
CNAs are organizations—like MITRE, major software vendors (e.g., Google, Microsoft), or bug bounty platforms—authorized to assign CVE IDs. The problem is that researchers can, and often do, report the same bug to different CNAs.
Consider this common scenario:
- Researcher A finds a bug in a product and reports it directly to the vendor’s security team (which is a CNA).
- Researcher B independently finds the same bug a week later and, not knowing about the first report, submits it to a different CNA, such as MITRE.
If Researcher B’s CNA processes the request faster, they might be publicly assigned the CVE, even though Researcher A reported it to the vendor first. The vendor, seeing a CVE already exists, may simply merge their internal report with the public one, leaving Researcher A with nothing to show for their work.
Common Flashpoints for CVE Credit Disputes
Several situations consistently lead to these ownership conflicts:
- Overlapping Reports: Two researchers describe the same core issue but with different attack vectors or impacts. A CNA might decide to merge them into a single CVE, often crediting only the one they deem “more complete” or the one they received first.
- The Vendor Black Box: A researcher reports a bug to a vendor and waits. During this private disclosure period, another researcher finds the flaw and discloses it publicly or to another CNA. The second researcher often gets the credit because their disclosure process was more transparent and faster.
- Splitting vs. Merging: CNAs have the authority to split a single complex report into multiple CVEs or merge several reports into one. The criteria for these decisions are often opaque, leading to inconsistent outcomes where one researcher gets multiple CVEs for a single report while another has their distinct findings merged under someone else’s name.
Actionable Advice: How Researchers Can Protect Their Work
While the system has its flaws, you are not powerless. Taking proactive steps can significantly increase your chances of receiving proper credit for your discoveries.
Create an Undeniable Paper Trail: Meticulous documentation is your best defense. From the moment you begin your research, log everything. Record timestamps, save all correspondence with vendors or CNAs, and keep detailed notes on your findings, including PoC code and replication steps. This evidence is invaluable if a dispute arises.
Communicate Proactively and Persistently: When you submit a vulnerability, don’t just fire and forget. Follow up professionally. If you believe your report is a duplicate of an existing one or that someone else is being credited for your find, present your evidence clearly and calmly to the CNA. Politely but firmly advocate for, at minimum, joint credit.
Understand the Rules of Engagement: Every CNA operates slightly differently. Before submitting, research the specific CNA’s policies on disclosure, disputes, and credit assignment. Knowing their process ahead of time can help you build a stronger case from the start.
Consider Your Disclosure Strategy: If you report to a vendor, ask about their timeline for assigning a CVE. If they are unresponsive or the timeline is excessively long, you may need to consider escalating your report to another CNA like MITRE. This can be a delicate balance, but waiting passively is often how credit is lost.
The Path Forward
The current CVE assignment process can inadvertently penalize researchers who follow responsible disclosure practices with slower-moving vendors. For the health of the security ecosystem, there is a clear need for a more flexible system that allows for joint credit and a more transparent dispute resolution process.
Until then, researchers must remain vigilant. By documenting your work, communicating effectively, and strategically navigating the disclosure process, you can better protect your professional contributions and ensure your hard work is rightfully recognized.
Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/security-firms-debate-cve-credit-in-overlapping-vulnerability-reports/
