<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Describing vulnerabilities in online services (SaaS, Cloud, web services)]]></title><description><![CDATA[<h1>Workshop Follow-up: Advisories for Online Services</h1><p>During our last workshop in <strong>Luxembourg</strong> on <strong>November 24th</strong>, a question was raised by a GNA (GCVE Numbering Authorities) regarding the ability to record and publish <strong>security advisories for online services</strong>.</p><p>We quickly reviewed the <strong>Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE)</strong> record format as used in BCP-05 and identified the following challenges when describing vulnerabilities in online services:</p><h2>Challenges with the CVE Record Format</h2><h3>1. Versioning</h3><ul><li>A <strong>traditional version number</strong> rarely exists for continuously deployed online services, unless they incorporate <strong>off-the-shelf software</strong> (e.g., WordPress) where a version change may be tracked.</li><li><strong>Proposed Strategy:</strong> An alternative strategy is to use a <strong>date/timestamp</strong> in the version field to indicate when the patch was deployed by the vendor on the vulnerable service online, effectively describing the service state <em>after</em> the fix.</li></ul><h3>2. Identifying the Affected Asset (CPE)</h3><ul><li>The current <strong>Common Platform Enumeration (CPE)</strong> format <a href="https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/security-content-automation-protocol/specifications/cpe">Reference: NIST CPE Specification</a><strong>does not</strong> inherently include a reference to a <strong>hostname</strong> or specific online Uniform Resource Locator (URL).</li><li>The standard CPE format uses the following types:<ul><li><code>a</code> for <strong>Applications</strong></li><li><code>h</code> for <strong>Hardware</strong></li><li><code>o</code> for <strong>Operating Systems</strong></li></ul></li><li><strong>Proposed Extension (idea):</strong> The format could be extended by adding <code>s</code> for <strong>Service</strong>. In this case, the <strong>vendor</strong> field could be used for the <strong>hostname</strong> (or service name) and the <strong>product</strong> field could describe the <strong>scope</strong> (e.g., a specific path or component) of the online vulnerability.</li></ul><h2>CVSS and Specific Notes</h2><h3>3. Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS)</h3><ul><li>The <strong>CVSS score and metrics</strong> still apply.</li><li>The <strong>Attack Vector</strong> metric will almost universally be set to <strong>Network</strong> (often interpreted as <code>remote</code>) since the service is accessible online.</li></ul><h3>4. Specific Advisory Notes</h3><ul><li>The <strong>Specific Notes</strong> or comments section should be used to provide critical context for consumers. Examples include:<ul><li>"<strong>No customer action/patch required; vendor fixed on server side.</strong>"</li><li>"<strong>Tenant-isolation issue in multi-tenant service.</strong>"</li><li>"<strong>service mis-configuration</strong>"</li></ul></li></ul><h2>Proposed Format Extension in <a href="https://gcve.eu/bcp/gcve-bcp-05/">BCP-05</a></h2><p>For tracking the service scope, the existing <strong>GCVE</strong> format (if used as a <strong>meta format</strong> for advisories) could be extended in the <strong>BCP-05</strong> structure to include the proposed service-scoping information (like hostname/path) in a dedicated field, even if the primary CPE itself remains un-updated.</p><br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.ossbase.org/t/describing-vulnerabilities-in-online-services-saas-cloud-web-services/731/1">Discuss this on our forum.</a>]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/077bd9ef-14c8-43fd-a29b-175949f87250/describing-vulnerabilities-in-online-services-saas-cloud-web-services</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 13:11:14 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/077bd9ef-14c8-43fd-a29b-175949f87250.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:47:54 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Describing vulnerabilities in online services (SaaS, Cloud, web services) on Fri, 27 Mar 2026 07:54:51 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>CRIT is trying to solve a real gap: package-oriented identifiers like CPE/PURL do not model cloud resources well, because cloud resources are runtime objects with provider-specific identifiers and exposure depends on timing, propagation, and remediation state. The draft is explicit about that, and the repo reflects it with dictionaries, schemas, samples, and a validator.</p><p></p><div class="card col-md-9 col-lg-6 position-relative link-preview p-0">



<a href="https://github.com/Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec" title="GitHub - Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec: Cloud Resource Identifier Templates (CRIT) — IETF specification for machine-readable cloud vulnerability records">
<img src="https://opengraph.githubassets.com/6f1862e13f76e86f26c02062dd6750e8a48072734d487ec03a38b2e7fd912e2d/Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec" class="card-img-top not-responsive" style="max-height:15rem" alt="Link Preview Image" />
</a>



<div class="card-body">
<h5 class="card-title">
<a href="https://github.com/Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec">
GitHub - Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec: Cloud Resource Identifier Templates (CRIT) — IETF specification for machine-readable cloud vulnerability records
</a>
</h5>
<p class="card-text line-clamp-3">Cloud Resource Identifier Templates (CRIT) — IETF specification for machine-readable cloud vulnerability records - Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec</p>
</div>
<a href="https://github.com/Vulnetix/ietf-crit-spec" class="card-footer text-body-secondary small d-flex gap-2 align-items-center lh-2">



<img src="https://github.githubassets.com/favicons/favicon.svg" alt="favicon" class="not-responsive overflow-hiddden" style="max-width:21px;max-height:21px" />



<p class="d-inline-block text-truncate mb-0">GitHub <span class="text-secondary">(github.com)</span></p>
</a>
</div><p></p><p>They also extend the CVE record format with an <code>x_</code> record just like GCVE. Yes, the ADP needs become like a major importance for the CVE Program.</p><p>CRIT records are naturally produced by parties closest to the platform semantics: cloud providers, specialized researchers, managed detection vendors, and vertical ecosystems. The draft even defines “producer” and “consumer” roles and warns that a producer aggregating multiple upstreams must handle <strong>natural-key collisions</strong>.</p><p>GCVE’s GNA model would help here because it gives each producer a stable namespace and publishing authority. That is cleaner than assuming all high-quality CRIT output ultimately needs to be mediated through the CVE pipeline or one ADP publisher. This would allow faster publication.</p><h2>Potential improvements in CRIT Internet-Draft</h2><p>Keep <code>vuln_id</code> generic, not effectively “must be CVE”.Then add:</p><ul><li><code>aliases[]</code></li><li><code>issuer</code></li><li><code>scheme</code> or <code>id_namespace</code> (<code>cve</code>, <code>gcve</code>, maybe others)</li></ul><p>The draft already defines “vulnerability identifier” generically, even though the examples are CVEs.</p><h1>Outcome</h1><ul><li><strong>CRIT solves the cloud-resource modeling problem</strong></li><li><strong>GCVE solves the decentralized publication and federation problem</strong></li></ul><br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.ossbase.org/t/describing-vulnerabilities-in-online-services-saas-cloud-web-services/731/3">Discuss this on our forum.</a>]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/post/https://discourse.ossbase.org/ap/object/8a9d28e71f15bb00d7177c89c89a7c8e</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/post/https://discourse.ossbase.org/ap/object/8a9d28e71f15bb00d7177c89c89a7c8e</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[adulau@discourse.ossbase.org]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 07:54:51 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Describing vulnerabilities in online services (SaaS, Cloud, web services) on Thu, 25 Dec 2025 06:27:46 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p>A tag is used in CVE record format to describe <code>Exclusively Hosted Service</code>	 with the following definition:</p><p><em>All known software and/or hardware affected by this CVE Record is known to exist only in the affected hosted service. If the vulnerability affects both hosted and on-prem software and/or hardware, then the tag should not be used.</em></p><p>This could be an approach to specify this "tag":</p><p></p><div class="card col-md-9 col-lg-6 position-relative link-preview p-0">



<a href="https://discourse.ossbase.org/t/cve-records-tags-and-recommended-taxonomies-in-gcve/741" title="CVE records tags and recommended taxonomies in GCVE">
<img src="https://discourse.ossbase.org/uploads/default/original/1X/4713f3d4fec85f7513775fc2dd36f548a49f8faa.jpeg" class="card-img-top not-responsive" style="max-height:15rem" alt="Link Preview Image" />
</a>



<div class="card-body">
<h5 class="card-title">
<a href="https://discourse.ossbase.org/t/cve-records-tags-and-recommended-taxonomies-in-gcve/741">
CVE records tags and recommended taxonomies in GCVE
</a>
</h5>
<p class="card-text line-clamp-3">Following the last working-group meeting with the MISP core team, many questions were raised concerning the tags and taxonomies used in the vulnerability ecosystem, including the CVE Program, GCVE, and others. 
The CVE P…</p>
</div>
<a href="https://discourse.ossbase.org/t/cve-records-tags-and-recommended-taxonomies-in-gcve/741" class="card-footer text-body-secondary small d-flex gap-2 align-items-center lh-2">



<img src="https://discourse.ossbase.org/uploads/default/optimized/1X/4713f3d4fec85f7513775fc2dd36f548a49f8faa_2_32x32.jpeg" alt="favicon" class="not-responsive overflow-hiddden" style="max-width:21px;max-height:21px" />





<p class="d-inline-block text-truncate mb-0">ossbase.org <span class="text-secondary">(discourse.ossbase.org)</span></p>
</a>
</div><p></p><br /><br /><a href="https://discourse.ossbase.org/t/describing-vulnerabilities-in-online-services-saas-cloud-web-services/731/2">Discuss this on our forum.</a>]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/post/https://discourse.ossbase.org/ap/object/b0703787042446046d09f8a2487a5b8b</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/post/https://discourse.ossbase.org/ap/object/b0703787042446046d09f8a2487a5b8b</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[adulau@discourse.ossbase.org]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 25 Dec 2025 06:27:46 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>