Evaluating the Soundness of Security Metrics from Vulnerability Scoring Frameworks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, a number of vulnerability scoring frameworks have been proposed to characterize the severity of known vulnerabilities in software-dependent systems. These frameworks provide security metrics to support decision-making in system development and security evaluation and assurance activities. When used in this context, it is imperative that these security metrics be sound, meaning that they can be consistently measured in a reproducible, objective, and unbiased fashion while providing contextually relevant, actionable information for decision makers. In this paper, we evaluate the soundness of the security metrics obtained via several vulnerability scoring frameworks. The evaluation is based on the Method for Designing Sound Security Metrics (MDSSM). We also present several recommendations to improve vulnerability scoring frameworks to yield more sound security metrics to support the development of secure software-dependent systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it