First question on here so please be as gentle as you can :-)

I've been looking around for any writings or papers on a standard for classifying vulnerabilities. Not from a severity/risk/impact point of view but categorising such as grouping all the 'missing patches', 'weak authentication management', egress/ingress rules for networks and alike. Now I know that plenty of people have done this work already, myself included. What I am interested to know is if anyone has done something on a more formal/standard footing?

Long question, all responses warmly welcomed.

  • Hi @IC3N1, welcome to the site!
    – AviD
    Commented Jun 7, 2011 at 16:13

2 Answers 2


MITRE has a few systems for this. CVE for things that need patching; CWE for bugs that need to be avoided/fixed, CAPEC describing attacks to your infrastructure; CCE for configuration needs; CPE for a proper naming scheme; and CEE for event exchange information.


You'll find links to other resources that work along with MITRE's standards or are similar in nature to them.

  • Yup, I was going to point to MITRE, though it seems that CWE is more what the OP was looking for...
    – AviD
    Commented Jun 9, 2011 at 14:12
  • Just as a follow up - MITRE looks like it is my friend. Many thanks.
    – IC3N1
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 8:36
  • 1
    There has been a lot of great work on this in the past 7 years. This list from MISP/circl is a great place to start: circl.lu/doc/misp-taxonomies Commented Apr 3, 2018 at 22:08

The OWASP top ten categorisation is exactly this kind of thing. Admittedly, they have chosen to dramatically shrink scope to just the top ten attack types.

  • OWASP Top 10 is good for those that it includes, and OWASP has a larger library of common vulnerabilities (though I guess not as formalized as MITRE's), mostly donated by Fortify and Aspect (so take them with certain amount of sodium chloride...)
    – AviD
    Commented Jun 9, 2011 at 14:13
  • Rory, thanks for the answer. Although the OWASP list gives good coverage of the common vulnerabilities it is by it's very nature web centric. For my needs I wanted a broader set of categories and I think MITRE's work looks closer to my needs.
    – IC3N1
    Commented Jun 14, 2011 at 8:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .