CVE Tracker
92 points by Group_B 4 hours ago | 34 comments

tomxor 2 hours ago
I was suspicious the absence of a severity filter was exaggerating the trend...

But then I found this:

https://craci.com/resources/CVE-publication-trends?sev=criti...

Trend for critical CVEs is actually worse, at roughly 25x that of 2020, compared to all CVEs which are roughly 5x compared to 2020.

reply
DeepYogurt 15 minutes ago
Severities are not directly comparable. The CVSS docs leave the choice of the "vulnerable component" as an exercise for the reader. The choice of the "vulnerable component" is also not encoded in the score so a critical may be a critical in the context of a library scored against a theoretical (and bad) program or it could be scored on a single website with known mitigations.
reply
k2enemy 2 hours ago
Cool. This would be easier to interpret with a log scale. There's an option for it, but clicking it doesn't change the chart and freezes the site for me.
reply
haaz 55 minutes ago
Same
reply
danso 53 minutes ago
It’s impressive that the number of CVEs issued the last two years has skyrocketed, given how badly DOGE gutted the cybersecurity [0] agencies. Unfortunately we don’t know how huge the backlog may have since grown

[0] https://www.securityweek.com/mitre-signals-potential-cve-pro...

reply
vasco 47 minutes ago
Do the agencies do any research to find CVEs? Or do they run a mostly cacheable website where they simply get posted?
reply
danso 3 minutes ago
The CVE system is far, far from perfect and NIST has faced increasing criticism (even before 2025) about its ability to triage and process the backlog. But I don't think their role is limited to simply posting what’s sent to them?

https://www.securityweek.com/cve-and-nvd-a-weak-and-fracture...

reply
xnx 29 minutes ago
Others have pointed out that we thought we would get security vulnerability from AI code, but it turns out AI is uncovering vulnerabilities in decades of human code.
reply
fbelzile 18 minutes ago
They aren't mutually exclusive. Wait until we find out intelligence services have been influencing the output of AI generated code for certain people/counties.
reply
DeepYogurt 28 minutes ago
Which it was trained on
reply
n2d4 25 minutes ago
Is the point that you're making that it only found the vulnerabilities because they were in the training set, and therefore AI didn't really "find" them?

If so, I fear you're making the opposite point, which is that AI made genuinely new discoveries that were not in its training set, about codebases that were in its training set. It quite literally expanded the horizon of what we know.

reply
DeepYogurt 19 minutes ago
Neither, I'm trying to assert that AI generated code would follow the (flawed) pattern we encoded in it. I think they're great for cyber stuff
reply
TechDebtDevin 24 minutes ago
[dead]
reply
bragr 6 minutes ago
I am more interested in the long term trend. Do we burn through the low hanging fruit at some point or is this the new normal?
reply
braiamp 2 hours ago
I remember a comment somewhere, where employees of a company, would open a CVE for a piece that they use in their job, to force an upgrade of said software since normal update request has been denied despite having business reasons to do so. So, the number doesn't matter.

Also, the linux kernel assigns CVE for anything that can be though as a vulnerability:

> Note, due to the layer at which the Linux kernel is in a system, almost any bug might be exploitable to compromise the security of the kernel, but the possibility of exploitation is often not evident when the bug is fixed. Because of this, the CVE assignment team is overly cautious and assign CVE numbers to any bugfix that they identify. This explains the seemingly large number of CVEs that are issued by the Linux kernel team

In other words, the number is fake

reply
red75prime 2 hours ago
> In other words, the number is fake

In other words, the method of assigning CVEs hasn't changed, but the number of CVEs has risen sharply.

reply
dgacmu 2 hours ago
The actual number needs to be interpreted carefully but the change is certainly real.
reply
DeepYogurt 47 minutes ago
I prefer the tornado

https://rogolabs.net/tornado/

reply
aforwardslash 40 minutes ago
Not the topic (the site is interesting), but a tangential rant.

I think the whole CVE/CVSS system is completely outdated, and it doesn't reflect the reality of software making for a while now (years). Also. for years, major software providers have been fighting to control their own release logs and security vulnerabilities. Recently, NIST stopped actually analyzing CVE's (one can relate to that), and the fact is that the system only makes sense as 1) vuln database; 2) in the context of responsible discosure; Responsible disclosure is from a non-AI era, where the time between a finding and a release woulds be measured in months, not weeks. Also, from a time where the probability of another human to stumble on that specific vulnerability was quite low. Pre-AI times.

Also, in April 2025 MITRE announced that fundings to the CVE/CWE program would expire, and it took a couple of days for the Trump administration to backpedal from that. We need a global system, not an american one - and clearly, americans should not be in charge of these global programs, as there is no way to isolate the world from their local politics. Their programs, their funding, nothing against it. I just think we, collectively, should have something a bit more robust, and while at it, do it on a quite more modern basis (EU CRA is actually a good start, as it includes SBOM and mandatory reporting).

CVE, CVSS, CPE seem all designed by comittee; CVSS and CPE are a flagrant case of that (try to apply CPE versioning to your own software, you'll get it); Its "what we have now" - there are alternatives, afaik but not that mainstream.

reply
cowlevel 27 minutes ago
IIRC the original purpose of CVE identifiers was purely identifiers, like IP addresses - they are assigned in blocks and the assignment of one doesn't say anything about what it points to. The government databases came a bit later.
reply
Shamanoid 3 hours ago
Thanks for this. I’m going to send it on our #general on Slack so people might understand when I say I’m a “bit” busy at the moment…
reply
dawnerd 3 hours ago
The Shigure mode cracked me up
reply
lousken 59 minutes ago
This is what AI companies meant by embracing the exponential?
reply
tireonfire 2 hours ago
12,000 CVEs? That doesn't match the data in the source at the bottom. I cloned it and for 2026 there are 79,764 CVE json files. I'm pretty sure I patched more than 12,000 CVEs for my RHEL systems this year. Also the site freezes for me as well when switching to logarithmic.
reply
jrflo 2 hours ago
12,000 per month
reply
jldugger 49 minutes ago
Avalanche on Mount Tech Debt?
reply
esafak 2 hours ago
Are folks finding it relatively easier to get SRE positions now? Demand ought to be up.
reply
tayo42 7 minutes ago
That's kind of where my careers been, it seems like sre has been rebranded infrastructure and platform engineering and there's not to much sre titled jobs. It's probably not to hard if you have demonstrated experience with the expected sre tools. If you happened to have made the unforgivable sin of not using k8s or terraform durring your career it sucks.
reply
retromagik 2 hours ago
I think SRE is a solid career pivot right now, especially if you have an overlapping skill set like mechanical/electrical engineering.
reply
strenholme 2 hours ago
It has hit the point where I’ve told people reporting bugs with my software that I won’t acknowledge the bug unless they provide a patch to mitigate the issue.

A lot of these bug reports are incorrectly filed. Let’s look at one issue, which I am sure was found with AI assistance:

CVE-2026-40719

Here’s the issue: An IP authorized to perform recursive queries can cause the DNS server to be non-responsive if it sends hundreds of specially crafted packets a minute (this can be changed to millions of packets a minute if one sets a parameter in the configuration file). Normal service is restored within a minute of the attack being stopped. The workaround would require me to essentially rewrite the recursive part of the DNS server.

Since the DNS server, like any server in a LAN, is already vulnerable to a flooding attack, this is just a flooding attack with extra steps.

I told the guy that was interesting, I’m not being paid enough to rewrite the DNS server to be immune to the attack, and people shouldn’t be using its recursion (it has very limited IPv6 support, for starters), and if they do use its recursion, only authorized IPs (e.g. 127.0.0.1 or 192.168.1.0/24) should be allowed to perform recursion.

It wasn’t a serious enough attack to merit a patch, and anyway the guy reporting the bug didn’t even have the decent courtesy to give me a patch.

The guy responded by filing for a CVE report, incorrectly calling it a “high impact” bug, and I had to make a “patch” which simply disables recursion: https://samboy.github.io/MaraDNS/patches/MaraDNS-CVE-2026-40...

Point being, a lot of these CVE reports out there which supposedly are high impact bugs are trivial things like “someone can overload a server for about one minute if they send hundreds to thousands of specially crafted DOS packets”.

(Today, I got an issue which, as far as I can tell, looks to be a Linux kernel issue and not an issue with my code. I told him to show me how he would patch my code to “fix” the issue, but so far have gotten nothing but crickets)

reply
cowlevel 25 minutes ago
Who forced you to make the patch instead of just leaving the CVE open forever?
reply
mschuster91 2 hours ago
In case you didn't notice this is yet another LLM slop project, have a look at the sourcecode, it's your typical everything-in-one-file regurgitation with loads of very verbose, claudish comments...
reply
0c3ca83 2 hours ago
It's software posted on hacker news. I'd be shocked if it wasn't absolutely slop.

At this point, I'm mildly surprised when it seems like a human wrote the article.

reply
lifeisloving 16 minutes ago
And those get downvoted. This site should adopt some filters for people that dont want to just talk about AI everyday.

Someone shared unslop.news and it kinda works but I forget it exists.

reply
bvcp 2 hours ago
what would help with this is to regulate and restrict frontier models from doing cyber work so that the good guys are defenceless against bad actors /s.

really disagree with western policy makers and ai company leaders on the path they are steering us, leaving us defenceless all for the sake of their obvious self serving attempts at regulatory capture.

reply