🛡️When the Backbone Shakes: The CVE Program’s Funding Crisis and Its Ripple Effect on OT Security

In partnership with

⚠️ The Hidden Engine Behind Cyber Resilience

Whether you're monitoring PLCs in a water treatment plant, managing vulnerability risk as a CISO, or writing policy that protects national infrastructure — there's one silent system tying it all together: the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) Program.

Every time you identify a CVE in an HMI, get an alert from your SIEM, or patch a critical OT device before attackers get to it — that’s the CVE system at work.

And this month, it nearly vanished.

⏳ A Program on the Brink

Earlier this April, the CVE Program faced a shocking reality: its funding from the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was set to expire — with no renewal in sight.

Only an 11th-hour extension kept the lights on, but the deeper issue remains:

There is no long-term funding plan for the global backbone of vulnerability tracking.

CISA has signaled intentions to transition CVE to an independent nonprofit, but there is no defined timeline, structure, or sustainability model announced. The risk? A critical infrastructure in its own right — left dangling in bureaucratic limbo.

🧭 Who Relies on CVEs?

Let’s make this crystal clear:

• 🔧 OT & ICS Professionals
  CVEs power vulnerability alerts for embedded systems, PLCs, SCADA, and field devices.
  Tools like asset inventory platforms, anomaly detection, and patch prioritization engines depend on CVE IDs.

• 🛡️ CISOs & Risk Leaders
  CVEs form the foundation of risk registers, remediation plans, audit compliance, and patch SLAs.
  Without trusted identifiers, risk prioritization collapses.

• 🏛️ Policymakers & Regulators
  Federal programs, cyber insurance models, critical infrastructure frameworks — from NERC CIP to NIST CSF — rely on CVE-based vulnerability classification to measure cyber posture.

🌍 What Happens If CVE Goes Dark?

1. Vulnerability Chaos
   Different vendors may start using incompatible naming conventions. Think DNS without domain names.

2. Delayed Disclosure & Exploit Advantage
   Researchers may delay or avoid public disclosure. Attackers stay ahead.

3. Fragmented Tooling & Compliance Nightmares
   Without standard CVEs, security platforms, asset managers, and compliance auditors can’t “speak the same language.”

4. Direct National Security Impact
   OT and ICS sectors become sitting ducks — as real-time situational awareness deteriorates globally.

   ❌ Risks & Negative Impacts if Funding Ends

   1. Fragmentation of Vulnerability Tracking

      • Different vendors may create incompatible vulnerability IDs, hurting coordination.

   2. Delayed Public Disclosure

      • Vulnerabilities may be underreported or misreported, giving attackers an edge.

   3. Loss of Trust

      • Security researchers may avoid public disclosure or use alternative (and fragmented) platforms.

   4. Tooling Breakdown

      • Vulnerability scanners, threat feeds, and SIEMs depend on CVE IDs for automation and prioritization.

   5. National Security Risks

      • Undermines critical U.S. and allied infrastructure protections by removing a fundamental security component.

🔄 So, What's the Solution?

The good news: we don’t have to wait for collapse to build a better future. Here are clear, actionable paths forward:

1. 🏛️ Establish a Nonprofit Foundation

A vendor-neutral, MITRE-supported nonprofit (like CNCF or the Linux Foundation) can steward the CVE program with transparency, speed, and global inclusion.

• CVE could become a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, independent of government bureaucracy.

• Funding via industry consortium: major tech companies, cybersecurity vendors, and global organizations pay dues.

2. 🤝 Industry-Led Funding

Major players in tech, OT security, industrial control, cloud, and telecom should co-invest in CVE's continuity. This is shared infrastructure.

3. 🌐 Global Coalition Support

It’s time for the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Canada to join as stakeholders. CVEs protect their infrastructures too.

Like how the OpenSSL Foundation was funded after Heartbleed, CVE could be supported by:

• Cloud providers

• OS vendors

• Security solution vendors

• Research institutions

4. 🔍 Broader Integration into ICS/OT Standards

CVE assignment must become standard in OT vendor vulnerability disclosures.
Integrate CVEs deeper into IEC 62443, NERC CIP, and ISA frameworks.

5. ^{Open-Source Governance Model}

• Adopt a decentralized governance framework similar to Linux Foundation projects.

• Community-driven vulnerability assignment and vetting.

🚨 Final Word: This Is the Canary in the Coal Mine

We talk a lot about zero-days, ransomware, and geopolitical cyberattacks. But none of our defenses work without coordination — and coordination starts with shared knowledge. The CVE Program is that shared knowledge.

Letting it crumble from budget neglect is more than shortsighted — it’s reckless.

The CVE Program is a keystone of modern cybersecurity. Letting it fail would be like removing GPS from global navigation. Even with CISA's temporary funding patch, a sustainable governance and funding model is urgently needed.

At OT Security Furious Warrior, we see this not as a niche funding story, but as a call to action for the entire industrial cybersecurity community.

📣 [“Join the Movement"]

What can you do?
🔁 Share this article
📢 Raise awareness inside your org
🧠 Talk to your vendors about CVE integration
🗣️ Advocate for international participation

🟩 #CVE #OTSecurity #ICS #CyberResilience #CISO #CriticalInfrastructure #MITRE #CISA #Policy #VulnerabilityManagement #FuriousWarrior

The fight for cyber resilience begins with protecting the foundations.

Stay secure, stay furious.
— Furious Warrior Team