Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

csoonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#781

Post by fennecfoxy »

MiguelX413 wrote: post #514
SecretDreams wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> cut everything, recklessly, indiscriminately Mostly discriminately, tbh.

[flagged]

Afaik there's never been a DEI initiative (or similar, I'm not American) that I've ever heard of to hire more gay people specifically. Most of us would hate to be hired for our sexuality rather than our skills.

There's nothing "woke" about it and screaming woke woke woke isn't going to change the fact that we exist and you don't like it. I'd tell you what I really think of you but it would invoke Dang.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#782

Post by stronglikedan »

jeff_carr wrote: post #721

The contract with MITRE has been extended. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/04/16/cve-... My guess indefinitely. DOGE might be a bunch of idiots, but in the entire DOD, there are non-idiots.

[flagged]

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#783

Post by nxobject »

tlogan wrote: post #739
jeff_carr wrote: post #721

The contract with MITRE has been extended. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/04/16/cve-... My guess indefinitely. DOGE might be a bunch of idiots, but in the entire DOD, there are non-idiots.

My guess is that they’ll be phased out next year. The long-term goal seems to be transitioning the CVE program into something more like an industry-led consortium. (If you did not notice they operate zero budgeting approach: cut everything and if something is very important reverse it. But you cut first and then ask questions.) It’s worth noting that MITRE is a DoD contractor (with minor contracts from other agencies…

I’m a little hesitant to trust a CVE database operated by private industry on the grounds of conflict of interest for that reason, too.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#784

Post by tlogan »

hackyhacky wrote: post #61
ggm wrote: post #51

I wish this hadn't happened. I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? I ask this, because I don't think anyone in the subject matter specialist space would have made a strong case "kill it, we don't need this" and I am sure if asked would have made a strong case "CRISSAKE WE NEED THIS DONT TOUCH IT" -But I could believe senior finance would do t…

> I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? This was not a carefully-weighed decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. This was a political order, consistent with the administration's policy of "cut everything, recklessly, indiscriminately."

Yes, this is 100% consistent with their policy: cut everything and if you find out that something is really really needed then reverse it.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#785

Post by bclemens »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #776
lynndotpy wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A bit disingenuous; he also had a career as a soldier.

Of course! It's easy to forget he was a guard at one of America's most notorious concentration camps, Guantanamo Bay. It's foolish to think of him only as a Fox News personality.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#786

Post by rfrey »

dTal wrote: post #693
SecretDreams wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell what argument you're making within the context of my post? The OP said indiscriminately, which means they're cutting uniformly across the board. I responded with "mostly discriminately" which means they're more selectively cutting based on prejudice. You then linked me a data point where you show they cut funding because it has the word "homo" in it and tell me to "get a hold of myself".. but your link w…

It is clear from context that the original comment is using "indiscriminately" in a sense of "without due care; thoughtlessly". Your first reply comes across as simply contradicting it, i.e. asserting that actually these cuts were made with an appropriate level of thoughtfulness. Your point that there are criteria which are being applied is a useful contribution, but you should have expanded on this in your original…

Indiscriminate means at random or without judgement. The comment you're arguing with clearly (and cleverly) said the cuts are not random. As one data point, I did not read the comment as contradicting anything, but as agreeing and expanding.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#787

Post by jacobyoder »

derbOac wrote: post #630
hackyhacky wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder what level of compartmentalisation inside DHS means they didn't see this as having sufficient downsides? This was not a carefully-weighed decision based on a cost-benefit analysis. This was a political order, consistent with the administration's policy of "cut everything, recklessly, indiscriminately."

There are many problems going on right now, but in terms of cuts this is one of the most problematic: everything is secret, with no oversight or deliberation. It's indistinguishable from corrupt malice because it's not done with open thoughtfulness.

I just can't believe your take on this. The White House press secretary has directly said, multiple times, "this is the most transparent administration ever". /s

In reality, this entire process is insanity. We've had examples of government spending overhaul in the past - early(?) 90s - both sides worked together, cut lots of spending across programs, downsized tens of thousands of federal workers, and balanced a budget, to the point where we had a surplus. It was tough, took time, wasn't perfect, but was deliberated and debated and far far far more open and transparent than all this. But their goal was actually improving government (even if that meant reducing some areas). The current 'leadership' goal is to dismantle/destroy as much as possible, as this is led by people who think government in general should not exist.

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#788

Post by plasma_beam »

jeff_carr wrote: post #721

The contract with MITRE has been extended. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2025/04/16/cve-... My guess indefinitely. DOGE might be a bunch of idiots, but in the entire DOD, there are non-idiots.

It doesn't appear to have posted to FPDS yet: https://www.fpds.gov/ezsearch/fpdsportal?q=PIID%3A%2270RCSJ2...

The contract expired today, but had an option period through March of 2026. DHS just needed to exercise the option.

Edit: Note the contract ended today April 16 - so performance would stop midnight tonight if the option wasn't exercised. Government contracts routinely go down to the wire like this, and often are late getting exercised. Why the uproar over this one? Did CISA signal to MITRE that they weren't going to exercise the option?

Re: CVE program faces swift end after DHS fails to renew contract [updated]

#789

Post by fennecfoxy »

pjmlp wrote: post #254
cavisne wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MITRE has a trademark on the term CVE.

As if laws have any meaning to this administration, and anyone expecting this will only last four years instead of turning into one of those countries so much admired by the captain at the helm, is fooling themselves. When the citizens realise this, the structures to clamp down any revolution will be in place.

TBF trade-marking a term like "CVE" is the most ridiculous fucking thing and just reeks of modern American copyright law type stuff.
Post reply on HN