I remember the first time I truly understood the importance of CVE numbers. It was 2018, and I was working on a critical infrastructure project when Meltdown hit. "CVE-2017-5754" became more than just a string of characters. It was a shared language that helped my team, our vendors, and our clients all understand exactly what we were dealing with. This week, watching that shared language threaten to splinter feels like watching the foundation of a house start to crack.
"CVE Fallout" Is Real–And So Is Our Industry's Identity Crisis
The crescendo of alarm over US government funding cuts for the MITRE-run CVE system hit a new high this week, only for a last-minute reprieve to arrive. But as The Register put it, "Uncertainty is the new certainty", and the sense of something fundamental shifting in cybersecurity is impossible to ignore.
If the Forbes article wondered whether the industry's silence on political retaliation against Chris Krebs marks a turning point, The Register sounded the klaxon: the "splintering" of the CVE system—the backbone for globally tracking software vulnerabilities—has begun. Meanwhile, on Hacker News, practitioners are debating what all this means, and who, if anyone, can be trusted to guard the digital gates when the very foundations are this shaky.
But what does it feel like for those of us in the trenches, working IT lifers, career-jumpers and accidental security pros who've watched the field change from the inside?
From Storage Solutions to Security by Osmosis
I've spent over two decades in IT, from microcomputer maintenance, through global IT management to enterprise storage architecture. Security was never something I formally studied; it's been an evolution, absorbed through workshops and necessity rather than choice. In my recent work with media and entertainment clients, security became intrinsic to every solution, you can't simply deliver fast storage anymore, you have to deliver fast secure storage.
As The Register pointed out in their piece, "Having a standardized system for identifying vulnerabilities is extremely important, and helps keep everyone…on the same page." For those of us designing infrastructures that handle sensitive data, that "system" may be invisible to our clients but it's utterly essential to our work.
Has the Industry Been "Deafeningly Silent" About CVE and Krebs?
Forbes called out a "deafening silence" from the cybersecurity community regarding Chris Krebs' targeting and the present CVE chaos. But from my position at the intersection of storage and security, that's only part of the story.
Within technical circles, on forums like The Register, Hacker News, and in professional networks there's plenty of discussion, contingency planning, and quiet concern. What's absent is the public outcry: limited mainstream media coverage and muted responses from major vendors. To quote The Register again, whether it's the CVE program or a high-profile infosec leader, "there's a whole lot of different terminology thrown around, and are we talking about the same thing?" This confusion contributes to the perception of silence that Forbes lamented.
But is the industry truly silent? I'd argue we're not. Like many of my colleagues, we're discussing these issues carefully, privately, weighing risks against responsibilities. As I see it, it's risk management, not apathy. As one Hacker News comment astutely noted, "the quiet ones you need to look out for" are simply doing their jobs, preparing for whatever's next.
The Real Challenge: Trust, Integrity, and Fragmentation
What struck me in the Register's analysis is how the CVE saga exposes the fragility of centralisation. The EU's new European Union Vulnerability Database (EUVD) is now emerging, right as global trust in a single authority falters:
"The timing of the EU database's emergence 'cannot be ignored as a coincidence.'... it signals a global lack of trust in the US government's commitment to ensuring the continuity of CVE."
— Brian Martin, Flashpoint (as quoted in The Register)
It's a classic "imperial vs metric" moment, as one expert put it: if each region starts using its own system, everyone loses. Forbes warned what can happen when integrity is punished and the industry hangs back. Now, the Register raises the alarm about what happens when trust in shared infrastructure starts to erode. Who will step in and maintain a single source of truth, and do it without bias or political interference?
On the Ground: Ethics, Whisper Networks, and Just "Doing the Job"
From my experience in both IT and outdoor leadership, I've learned that real resilience often develops quietly, away from the spotlight. I've discovered vulnerabilities in systems, researched their implications, and ensured they were properly addressed. Often, colleagues had already identified the same issues. In well-functioning teams, security is everyone's responsibility, you don't need to broadcast every fix, you just ensure the problem is solved and recorded appropriately.
For those in formal security roles, the stakes are higher and the ethical considerations sharper. Forbes asked whether "just doing your job" in cybersecurity is now a politicized act. From where I sit, we've always navigated the intersection of risk, duty, and discretion. Training covers how to protect yourself when reporting issues, but not every organization (or country) supports truth-tellers with the visibility they deserve.
The Problem of Public Awareness and the "Invisible" CVE
Most people don't know CVE exists until their system breaks or their data is compromised. The Register captured this perfectly: "If someone says CVE-2017-5754, for example, there's no question they are talking about Intel's Meltdown... This common language helps avoid what we currently have with cybercrime-groups, where various government agencies and private-sector threat intel firms all have their own naming conventions." Without a shared language, confusion reigns and risk multiplies.
So, are we "not being heard," as some on Hacker News claim? In truth, most of us aren't speaking publicly, because effective security work often happens behind the scenes. That's not abdication; it's strategic caution born of experience.
Should Security Challenge Government Overreach?
There's a vigorous debate surfacing everywhere from Forbes to The Register to the EU's new initiatives about who should steward vital infosec infrastructure. Perhaps the answer lies in true decentralisation, or a federated, multi-stakeholder model that can weather political storms. Akin to what's slowly happening in the social network world.
As Flashpoint's Brian Martin told The Register:
"Continued dependency on funding from CISA might put pressure... One of the key promises of EUVD is that it will be multi-nationally sponsored, ostensibly avoiding that pitfall."
But every new system introduces fresh challenges: potential bias, fragmentation, and its own "single points of failure." Insecurity manifests at institutional levels as readily as technical ones.
"Be Cautious; But If You're Trained, Step Up"
Cybersecurity remains a misunderstood, high-stakes arena. The Register's concluding thought "what happens after the next 11 months of funding?" drives this home: "There's no understanding or guarantee about what will happen after that point". We're navigating an evolving landscape where the right response isn't always public proclamation but sometimes careful planning and quiet resilience-building.
For emerging professionals: Be aware, be prepared, and understand that this career path demands strength of character. Significant risks require significant responsibility. That's why I deeply respect those on the front lines and why I'm comfortable contributing from my vantage point, bridging storage, security, and solution architecture.
Final Thought: Finding Balance in Uncertainty
Forbes, The Register, and the infosec community are asking essential questions about trust, structure, and the costs of silence versus fragmentation. Simple answers remain elusive. But if there's one lesson, it's that the quiet, well-prepared professionals are the true backbone of our digital world.
Uncertainty may be the new certainty. But through collaboration, knowledge-sharing even when done quietly, the fundamentals of trust and clarity might endure. Sometimes that's all any of us can reasonably expect.
Based in Wales, I've spent over two decades navigating IT challenges across industries. If you're grappling with these issues and want to share your perspective whether on the record or off, I'm always ready to listen and learn.