For decades, cybersecurity professionals and organisations have turned to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) as a cornerstone for evaluating the severity of software vulnerabilities. Its numerical structure and standardised format have made it appealing as a method for triaging threats in an increasingly complex threat landscape. However, as real-world experience accumulates, it’s becoming clear that the way CVSS is commonly used may be doing more harm than good in many environments. The issue isn’t necessarily with the framework itself, but rather with the way it’s interpreted, applied, and often relied upon to make critical security decisions.
Where CVSS Misses the Mark
It’s important to acknowledge that CVSS was designed by highly capable professionals, and the framework does serve a useful purpose in providing a consistent language around vulnerabilities. However, many of its shortcomings arise from its ambition to be a universal yardstick—attempting to apply the same scoring model to all vulnerabilities across every system, regardless of complexity or context. That one-size-fits-all approach may seem logical at a glance, but in practice, it often results in flawed prioritisation and misaligned remediation efforts.
Take, for example, organisations that invest significant time parsing through vulnerability reports and selectively applying patches based on arbitrary score thresholds. Teams might find themselves stuck in meetings deliberating whether a flaw is an “8” or a “9” on the CVSS scale, only to eventually log it into a risk register that’s rarely, if ever, revisited. This misplaced focus detracts from what truly matters—fixing the vulnerabilities themselves.
In other cases, pentesting teams conduct assessments and filter their findings not by actual impact or exploitability in the current environment, but by whether the CVSS score clears an internal reporting threshold. Vulnerabilities that don’t meet the numeric benchmark may be left out entirely. This creates an illusion of safety that can easily be shattered by real-world exploitation.
A more effective approach would involve adapting the CVSS model based on system categories. Tailoring scoring models for hardware, web applications, and operating systems would provide much more meaningful prioritisation. What matters in one domain may be irrelevant in another, and the context of the environment should weigh heavily in determining the actual risk.
The Pitfalls of Score-Based Prioritisation
One of the most common misapplications of CVSS in enterprise settings is the reliance on a rigid thresholding approach to vulnerability remediation. Teams are often directed to “fix everything rated 8.0 and above” within a certain amount of time without considering the strategic implications or the efficiency of this method. It’s a flawed tactic akin to instructing a gardener to only pull weeds taller than 10 centimetres from a vast field. While it appears methodical, it ignores the interdependencies and may leave entire patches of risk untouched.
This approach reflects a deeper issue—the overconfidence in numerical ratings to represent multifaceted, dynamic cybersecurity risks. Risk, in the real world, cannot be distilled into a single digit. CVSS does not account for contextual factors such as how exposed a system is, whether compensating controls exist, or how difficult it is to actually implement a fix. By reducing vulnerabilities to numbers, we risk ignoring the nuance that should drive decisions.
In fact, many professionals preparing for advanced roles—especially those pursuing CISM certification—are taught to think beyond checklists and scores, focusing instead on comprehensive risk management frameworks. These frameworks prioritise business impact, regulatory requirements, and exploitability in a specific context, offering a far more refined approach to vulnerability assessment and handling than CVSS can provide on its own.
Oversimplification Undermines Action
Perhaps one of the most damaging consequences of CVSS reliance is the tendency to oversimplify the remediation process. CVSS does not factor in remediation complexity, which often leads to critical misjudgments in vulnerability handling. A flaw that’s relatively easy to fix may be passed over in favour of another that meets a numerical threshold but is far more difficult to remediate. This leads to wasted resources and missed opportunities for impactful improvements.
Cybersecurity professionals who undergo CISSP certification are specifically trained to take a holistic view of security. They understand that patching strategies should be integrated into a broader operational context, where remediation effort, business risk, and technical feasibility are all considered. This kind of systemic thinking is what’s needed to move beyond numeric obsession.
From Precision to Pragmatism: Shifting the Vulnerability Mindset
The cybersecurity industry needs a paradigm shift akin to DevOps’ transition from “pets” to “cattle.” In infrastructure management, “pets” are individual systems painstakingly maintained, while “cattle” are disposable components replaced en masse. Similarly, vulnerabilities should be treated not as unique anomalies requiring bespoke analysis but as routine risks managed through scalable processes.
This shift demands two key changes:
1. Prioritising Remediation Efficiency: Instead of cherry-picking vulnerabilities based on scores, organisations should focus on systemic fixes. Automating patch deployment for entire asset groups, enforcing secure configurations, and addressing vulnerability classes can reduce the attack surface more effectively than chasing individual CVEs.
2. Embracing Continuous Mitigation: Waiting for a “critical” score to act is a losing strategy. Continuous vulnerability scanning, coupled with automated workflows for triage and remediation, ensures that risks are addressed proactively.
The Hidden Dangers of Chained Vulnerabilities
Another shortfall of CVSS is its inability to account for how attackers operate in real-world scenarios. Vulnerabilities are rarely exploited in isolation. Threat actors routinely chain multiple low- or medium-severity vulnerabilities to create a larger, more destructive attack vector. An issue rated as a “4” on its own could become catastrophic when paired with another seemingly unrelated vulnerability.
Focusing purely on individual CVSS scores blinds organisations to these systemic risks. Security teams need to look at their infrastructure holistically and identify patterns that could be exploited in tandem. Remediation strategies should aim to eliminate entire classes of vulnerabilities by addressing root causes—such as insecure default settings, poor input validation, or the absence of privilege separation—rather than continuously chasing new CVEs as they emerge.
By taking this proactive stance, organisations can break out of the cycle of endless patching and begin fortifying their systems at a foundational level.
Conclusion
In today’s cybersecurity landscape, the volume of vulnerabilities is simply too high to justify manual, score-based triage. CVSS can be a useful tool for classification, but it should not be the sole driver of decision-making. Fixation on numbers leads to delayed action, inefficient remediation, and a false sense of control.
The better path forward is rooted in scalable practices, automation, and strategic prioritisation based on context—not arbitrary thresholds. Vulnerabilities must be handled with the same operational mindset used in modern infrastructure: treated collectively, addressed systematically, and resolved efficiently. So stop treating vulnerabilities like pets. They’re cattle. It’s time to herd them accordingly.
Understanding and applying CVSS accurately is critical for pentesters aiming to deliver real-world value. At BridgingMinds, we equip cybersecurity professionals with the skills and knowledge to go beyond surface-level assessments. Our comprehensive selection of courses—including CREST Preparation—are designed to strengthen both technical and analytical capabilities. Reach out to BridgingMinds today and take the next step toward becoming a more insightful and effective cybersecurity expert.
