Skip to content

Vendor-Specific Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Analysis

Research Overview

Comparative Analysis of Vendor-Specific Common Weakness Enumeration Patterns: A Large-Scale Empirical Study

This research presents the first comprehensive, large-scale analysis of Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) distributions across five major technology vendors and platforms. Through analysis of 50,270 CVEs spanning 733 unique CWEs, we quantify vendor-specific vulnerability characteristics and establish statistical foundations for vendor-specific risk assessment.

🎯 Research Question

Primary Research Question

How do vulnerability patterns vary across major technology vendors, and what quantitative metrics can effectively characterize vendor-specific security landscapes?

Sub-questions:

  • What are the quantitative differences in CWE distributions across major vendors?
  • How can we measure vendor specialization in specific vulnerability types?
  • What correlations exist between vendor characteristics and vulnerability patterns?
  • How do open-source and commercial vendors differ in their vulnerability landscapes?

🔍 Key Findings

Major Discoveries

Coverage & Diversity

  • GitHub Open-Source leads with 60.6% CWE coverage (444/733 CWEs)
  • RedHat Open-Source shows 49.0% coverage (359/733 CWEs)
  • Microsoft demonstrates 42.8% coverage (314/733 CWEs)
  • Cisco exhibits 34.7% coverage (254/733 CWEs)
  • RedHat Commercial has 27.7% coverage (203/733 CWEs)

Specialization Patterns

Vendor Concentration Analysis

  • Cisco: Highest specialization at 16.8% (focused on CWE-20: Input Validation)
  • GitHub: High specialization at 15.8% (focused on CWE-79: XSS)
  • Microsoft: Moderate specialization at 12.0% (focused on CWE-416: Use After Free)
  • RedHat Open-Source: 10.2% specialization (focused on CWE-119: Buffer issues)
  • RedHat Commercial: Lowest specialization at 7.2% (most distributed profile)

Statistical Correlations

Quantitative Relationships

  • Volume vs. Diversity: Strong positive correlation (r = 0.958)
  • Coverage vs. Specialization: Moderate positive correlation (r = 0.444)
  • Dataset Size: 50,270 CVEs across 733 unique CWEs
  • Statistical Significance: All correlations significant at p < 0.001

📊 Comprehensive Vendor Profiles

Microsoft Profile

Microsoft Security Landscape

Memory Management Specialists

  • Total CVEs: 10,225
  • Unique CWEs: 314 (42.8% coverage)
  • Top Vulnerability: CWE-416 (Use After Free) - 1,231 CVEs
  • Specialization: 12.0% (moderate concentration)
  • Category Focus: Memory management issues (~40% of vulnerabilities)
  • Notable Patterns: High concentration in heap-based buffer overflows, race conditions

Risk Implications: Critical memory safety concerns require focused testing on memory management vulnerabilities in Windows ecosystem.

Cisco Profile

Cisco Security Landscape

Network Infrastructure Focus

  • Total CVEs: 5,734
  • Unique CWEs: 254 (34.7% coverage)
  • Top Vulnerability: CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) - 964 CVEs
  • Specialization: 16.8% (highest specialization)
  • Category Focus: Access control (~35% of vulnerabilities)
  • Notable Patterns: Network infrastructure vulnerabilities, authentication issues

Risk Implications: Input validation critical for network security; requires comprehensive network-focused security testing.

GitHub Open-Source Profile

GitHub Open-Source Landscape

Web Application Security Leaders

  • Total CVEs: 16,634
  • Unique CWEs: 444 (60.6% coverage - highest diversity)
  • Top Vulnerability: CWE-79 (Cross-site Scripting) - 2,633 CVEs
  • Specialization: 15.8% (high concentration despite diversity)
  • Category Focus: Input validation dominates (~50% of vulnerabilities)
  • Notable Patterns: Web-facing application vulnerabilities, configuration issues

Risk Implications: Broadest vulnerability landscape requiring comprehensive security coverage across multiple categories.

RedHat Profiles (Commercial vs Open-Source)

RedHat Commercial 

• Total CVEs: 1,760
• Unique CWEs: 203 (27.7% coverage)
• Top Vulnerability: CWE-502 (Deserialization) - 126 CVEs
• Specialization: 7.2% (lowest - most distributed)
• Focus: Enterprise stability and security
• Pattern: Most evenly distributed vulnerability profile

RedHat Open-Source 

• Total CVEs: 15,917
• Unique CWEs: 359 (49.0% coverage)
• Top Vulnerability: CWE-119 (Buffer Operations) - 1,616 CVEs
• Specialization: 10.2% (moderate)
• Focus: System-level vulnerabilities
• Pattern: Memory management and buffer-related issues

🎨 Visual Analysis Results

The research produces five comprehensive academic-quality visualizations:

Figure 1: Comprehensive Vendor Comparison

Multi-Dimensional Analysis

png Four-panel analysis showing:

  • (A) CWE Diversity by Vendor: Bar chart of coverage percentages
  • (B) Specialization vs Coverage: Scatter plot with vendor positioning
  • (C) Vulnerability Volume: Total CVE counts by vendor
  • (D) CWE Diversity Count: Absolute numbers of unique CWEs

Figure 2: Vendor-Specific CWE Heatmap

Distribution Patterns

png Comprehensive heatmap of top 20 CWEs across all vendors:

  • Cross-cutting vulnerabilities: CWE-79 (XSS), CWE-20 (Input Validation)
  • Vendor specializations: Microsoft's memory issues, Cisco's network focus
  • Color intensity: Logarithmic scale for better visualization
  • Pattern identification: Clear vendor-specific concentrations

Figures 3-5: Advanced Analytics

Additional Visualizations

png Figure 3: CWE Category Distribution - Stacked bar chart showing 7 vulnerability categories - Memory Management, Input Validation, Access Control, etc. - Vendor-specific category concentrations png Figure 4: Specialization Radar Chart - Four-dimensional radar analysis - Top ⅓/5 dominance metrics - Inequality index measurements - Comparative vendor profiles png Figure 5: Statistical Correlation Analysis - Coverage vs specialization relationships - Volume vs diversity correlations - CVE distribution patterns - Normalized metric comparisons

🧮 Mathematical Framework

The research introduces novel quantitative metrics for vendor vulnerability assessment:

Core Metrics

1. CWE Coverage Diversity

\[ Coverage_{diversity}(V) = \frac{|CWE_{vendor}(V)|}{|CWE_{total}|} \times 100\% \]

Where: \(CWE_{vendor}(V)\) = unique CWEs for vendor V, \(CWE_{total}\) = all CWEs in database

2. Specialization Index

\[ Specialization(V) = \frac{CVE_{top1}(V)}{CVE_{total}(V)} \times 100\% \]

Where: \(CVE_{top1}(V)\) = count in most common CWE, \(CVE_{total}(V)\) = total CVEs for vendor

3. Inequality Index (Gini Coefficient)

\[ Gini(V) = \frac{2\sum(i \times CVE_{sorted}(i))}{n \times \sum CVE(i)} - \frac{n+1}{n} \]

Where: \(CVE_{sorted}(i)\) = i-th smallest CVE count, n = number of CWEs

4. Category Concentration

\[ Concentration_{cat}(V) = \frac{\sum(CVE(c,V))}{CVE_{total}(V)} \times 100\% \]

Where: \(CVE(c,V)\) = CVEs in category c for vendor V

🔬 Methodology Summary

Data Sources

Authoritative Datasets

  • National Vulnerability Database (NVD): Primary CVE metadata and CWE classifications
  • Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC): Vendor-specific patch data
  • Cisco Security Advisories: Network infrastructure vulnerability data
  • RedHat Security Advisories: Enterprise Linux vulnerability data
  • GitHub Security Advisories: Open-source project vulnerability data

Analysis Pipeline

graph TD
    A[Raw CVE Data] --> B[Data Cleaning & Standardization]
    B --> C[CWE Classification]
    C --> D[Vendor Association]
    D --> E[Quantitative Metrics Calculation]
    E --> F[Statistical Analysis]
    F --> G[Visualization Generation]
    G --> H[Academic Publication]

Data Quality Assurance

Quality Controls

  • CWE Standardization: Removed generic classifications ('NVD-CWE-Other', 'NVD-CWE-noinfo')
  • Duplicate Removal: Applied DISTINCT counting to prevent JOIN inflation
  • Vendor Classification: Separated RedHat into Commercial vs Open-Source
  • Data Validation: Verified CWE-CVE mappings against authoritative sources

🎯 Practical Applications

Vendor Risk Assessment

Risk Evaluation Framework

High-Coverage Vendors (GitHub, RedHat Open-Source)

  • Require broad security monitoring across multiple CWE categories
  • Need comprehensive vulnerability scanning tools
  • Benefit from diverse security testing approaches

High-Specialization Vendors (Cisco, GitHub)

  • Need targeted vulnerability management in specific CWE categories
  • Require specialized security testing for dominant vulnerability types
  • Benefit from focused security expertise development

Low-Coverage Vendors (RedHat Commercial)

  • May have focused but deep vulnerabilities
  • Require thorough testing in identified vulnerability areas
  • Need monitoring for emerging vulnerability categories

Supply Chain Security

Supply Chain Implications

Multi-Vendor Environments

  • Organizations using multiple vendors face diverse vulnerability landscapes
  • Requires comprehensive security strategies spanning different vendor specializations
  • Vendor specialization patterns inform targeted security testing priorities

Open-Source vs Commercial

  • Open-source vendors show broader vulnerability landscapes
  • Commercial vendors often have more focused vulnerability profiles
  • Risk assessment strategies must account for vendor type differences

Vulnerability Management Strategy

Targeted Approaches

Memory-Focused Strategies → Microsoft environments

  • Emphasize memory safety testing
  • Focus on buffer overflow detection
  • Prioritize use-after-free vulnerability scanning

Input Validation Emphasis → Web applications (GitHub, Cisco)

  • Comprehensive input sanitization testing
  • XSS and injection vulnerability focus
  • Web application security scanners

Network Security Priorities → Cisco infrastructure

  • Network-level vulnerability assessment
  • Authentication and access control testing
  • Infrastructure-specific security tools

🔮 Future Research Directions

Immediate Extensions

Phase 1: Temporal Analysis

Research Question: How do vendor CWE patterns evolve over time?

  • Longitudinal analysis of vendor vulnerability evolution
  • Impact assessment of vendor security initiatives
  • Predictive modeling for future vulnerability characteristics
  • Time-series analysis of CWE distribution changes

Phase 2: CWE Co-occurrence Analysis

Research Question: Which CWE combinations create compound vulnerabilities?

  • Multi-weakness vulnerability analysis
  • Vendor-specific patterns in CWE combinations
  • Association rule mining for weakness relationships
  • Compound vulnerability risk assessment

Advanced Research Opportunities

CWE-CAPEC Integration

Objective: Connect weakness patterns to attack methodologies

  • Systematic CWE-to-CAPEC relationship mapping
  • Vendor-specific attack pattern predictions
  • Exploitability modeling based on weakness combinations
  • Comprehensive threat modeling frameworks

Expected Impact: Enhanced threat intelligence and attack prediction capabilities

Machine Learning Applications

Objective: Automated vendor risk assessment

  • ML models for vendor vulnerability prediction
  • Automated vendor risk scoring systems
  • Recommendation engines for security measures
  • Pattern recognition for emerging threats

Expected Impact: Data-driven, automated vendor assessment tools

Collaborative Opportunities

Open Research Questions

Cross-Industry Analysis

  • How do vendor patterns vary across different industry sectors?
  • What sector-specific factors influence vendor vulnerability landscapes?
  • Can we develop industry-specific risk assessment frameworks?

Global Vulnerability Ecosystems

  • How do vulnerabilities propagate across vendor ecosystems?
  • What patterns exist in shared vulnerability components?
  • How can supply chain relationships be quantified through CWE analysis?

📈 Research Impact & Significance

Academic Contributions

Scholarly Impact

Methodological Innovations

  • First large-scale vendor-specific CWE analysis (50,270+ CVEs)
  • Novel quantitative metrics for vulnerability characterization
  • Statistical framework for vendor comparison and assessment
  • Reproducible methodology for longitudinal analysis

Empirical Findings

  • Quantified vendor vulnerability landscape differences
  • Established statistical relationships between vendor characteristics
  • Identified vendor specialization patterns and implications
  • Provided baseline metrics for future comparative studies

Industry Applications

Practical Value

Cybersecurity Practice

  • Data-driven vendor risk assessment frameworks
  • Targeted vulnerability management strategies
  • Supply chain security evaluation methods
  • Evidence-based security decision making

Tool Development

  • Vendor assessment automation
  • Risk scoring algorithms
  • Security testing prioritization
  • Threat modeling enhancements

📚 Research Resources

Documentation Structure

Available Resources

Getting Started

Quick Start

  1. Follow the Reproduction Guide for hands-on analysis
  2. Explore the Analysis Notebook for implementation
  3. Study detailed Results & Findings for comprehensive insights

Research Contact

Principal Investigator: Eid AlBedah
Institution: City, University of London
Department: Information Security, Computer Science
Email: Eid.Albedah@city.ac.uk

Research Status: Under development (2025)
Last Updated: August 2025