Isn’t that already the case these days, or am I misunderstanding your comment? I mean, the NVD has been struggling with analysis for many months, and they typically provide their own CVSS 3.1 Base Score in addition to a CVSS Base Score from the CNA that issued the CVE Identifier. This means you can end up with one or two different CVSS Base Scores for the same CVE Identifier. As we know, both CVSS 3.1 and 4.0 have many limitations, including the fact that two security analysts can arrive at different assessments and thus different CVSS Base Scores. What I’m saying is that even now, you have to rely on the accuracy of the vulnerability assessment without question. There have been numerous instances where CVE Identifiers end up being marked as “DISPUTED.”

This could mean that health and fitness data is being transferred to US companies. While this may not be a dealbreaker for many people, I appreciated having an alternative from the UK to the major providers in the US.

What should a screenshot that is about 12 years old prove or not prove? Technology has advanced significantly since then. Over the past decade, we’ve developed a range of new encryption algorithms, improved password hashing methods, TLS 1.3, post-quantum cryptography, and much more. The “Game of Trust” can be extended indefinitely, but using a 12-year-old screenshot as evidence for a situation in 2025 is questionable.