Methodology
CVE Hub uses an automation-assisted, human-edited workflow.
Automation helps with sourcing and enrichment. Publication decisions remain editorial.
How topics are selected
Priority goes to issues that combine several of the following:
- meaningful real-world exposure
- credible exploitation paths or active interest from attackers
- weak vendor communication that needs translation
- high defender impact, even when the CVSS score alone is misleading
- educational value for readers trying to improve their own triage process
What automation is allowed to do
Automation may be used to:
- collect candidate CVEs and related advisories
- gather references, patch links, and public exploit indicators
- produce draft structure and metadata
- assist with comparison, summarization, and archive maintenance
What automation is not allowed to do on its own
Automation should not publish unchecked claims.
Posts are expected to be reviewed for:
- source authenticity
- product and vendor accuracy
- exploitability claims
- mitigation quality
- leftover placeholders, filler, or unsupported statements
Editorial standards
Every post should try to answer four questions:
- Why should anyone care?
- What is technically happening?
- How urgent is it in practice?
- What should defenders or decision-makers do next?
Confidence and uncertainty
Not every vulnerability arrives with complete evidence.
When the facts are incomplete, CVE Hub should:
- say what is known
- say what is inferred
- label confidence clearly
- link back to primary sources so readers can verify the reasoning