Actively encouraging people to toss perfectly good hardware to fuel their subscription bullshit… and these guys weren’t even recently bought by a VC firm or anything?
As you yourself stated, CVSS does exactly what it says on the box. It provides a singular rating for a software vulnerability, in a vacuum. It does not prescribe to do anything more, and it does a good job doing what it sets out to do (including specifically as an input to other quantitative risk calculations).
Compare what with attack?
Your methodology heavily relies on “the analysis of cybersecurity experts”, and in particular, frequently references “exploit chains”, mappings which are not clearly defined, and appears to rely on the knowledge of the individual practitioner, rather than existing open frameworks. MITRE ATT&CK and CAPEC already provide such a mapping, as well as a list of threat actor groups leveraging tactics, techniques, and procedures (e.g., exploitation of a given CVE). Here’s a good articlewhich maps similarly to how we operate our cybersecurity program.
I think there is a lot on the mark in your article about the issues with cybersecurity today, but again, I believe that your premise that CVSS needs replacing is flawed, and I don’t think you provided a compelling case to demonstrate how/why it is flawed. If anything, I think you would agree that if organizations are exclusively using CVSS scores to prioritize remediation, they’re doing it wrong, and fighting an impossible battle. But this means the organization’s approach is wrong, not CVSS itself.
Your article stands better alone as a proposal for a methodology for quantifying risk and threat to an organization (or society?), rather than as a takedown of CVSS.
Glancing through your article, while you have correctly assessed the need for risk based prioritization of vulnerability remediation and mitigation, your central premise is flawed.
Vulnerability is not threat— CVSS is a scoring system for individual vulnerabilities, not exploit chains. For that, you’ll want to compare with ATT&CK or the legacy cyber kill chain.
.(potksed ym rof) 68x naht rehto gnihtyna no swodniw nur reven ll’I ,epoN
.gnimoc eb lliw sehctap ytrap tsrif on os ,tsixe regnol on erawtfos taht etorw taht seinapmoc eht fo emos ,snur llits ti dna swodniw no (yllacipyt semag ro snigulp noitcudorp cisum rehtie) oga sedaced nettirw erawtfos pu llup yllanoisacco I tub ,krow rof PBM MRA ym htiw yppah yrev m’I
According to the Bureau Of Labor Statistics, the median salary for airline captains, first-officers, second-officers, and flight engineers in the United States is $203,010 as of 2021.
The big problem is actually in certifying people qualified to take those jobs, which takes additional time and money, mostly to pay for flight time for training. It can take a few grand for just a personal pilot license, but to fly an airline, you need instrument, commercial, and Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) certifications, plus increasingly expensive type ratings for the various aircraft you will be flying, a minimum of 1500 hours of flight time, and multiple years at the bottom working your way through smaller regional airlines and courier services.
You can get through the commercial licensing in 12-18 months and about $40k in flight time and insurance, but that is barely enough to get your foot in the door making $50k a year, and even then, you’re still not allowed to fly parcels or passengers for money. Getting those licenses will take another 18 months and another $40-80k, again, mostly in flight time.
That said, once you have ATPL, the company will start paying for your flight time, and you will be earning a 6 figure salary. After 5 years or so and about $100k investing in your training, you should be making over $200k, and can begin to recoup those costs.
Saying “Integrates with OpenAI” in 2023 is exactly equivalent to saying “uses Web 2.0” from 20 years ago. Buzzword trash that says absolutely about how the product uses said technology.
Support is not action.
If political violence has been rising across the board, why use an article from five years ago? According to your premise, shouldn’t there be a more recent incident?
Of course nothing is 100%, but ascribing equal weight between 1% and 99% is a false equivalence.
Said it better than I could. Fair? Yes. Effective? No.