With the new European Vulnerability Database (EUVD), the EU wants to create a standardized platform to record security vulnerabilities in a more transparent and coordinated manner. But how effective is this approach compared to existing national systems such as the BSI’s security alerts – and what real added value does the EUVD offer companies in practice?
With the introduction of the European Vulnerability Database (EUVD), the European Cybersecurity Agency (ENISA) has launched a new initiative to improve the central recording and publication of IT vulnerabilities within Europe. The database is part of efforts to strengthen the European cyber security strategy while supporting regulatory requirements such as the NIS2 Directive and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA).
The aim of the EUVD is to systematically record and evaluate known security vulnerabilities and make them available automatically via standardized formats – in particular the Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF). The focus here is on the idea of a common, trustworthy source of vulnerability information in Europe.
Advantages and challenges of the EUVD
The theoretical advantages of such a central platform are obvious: more transparency, better coordination and more efficient distribution of security-relevant information. For companies, this potentially means a faster response to new vulnerabilities and a clearer overview of relevant threats.
However, it remains to be seen how well the EUVD works in practice. A key question is the quality and timeliness of the information provided – especially in comparison to existing national and international platforms. It is also currently unclear how quickly the database can react to new threats and whether it is able to keep pace with established sources such as the US National Vulnerability Database (NVD) or industry-specific platforms.
Comparison with the BSI’s security alerts
A look at current entries in the EUVD(https://euvd.enisa.europa.eu) compared with the security alerts issued by the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI)(https://www.allianz-fuer-cybersicherheit.de) reveals both overlaps and differences.
- EUVD: The platform provides structured information on vulnerabilities, some of which is aggregated from other sources and provided in CSAF format. Some of the content is still technically focused and requires users to have a certain level of specialist knowledge. The number of entries is currently still manageable – which indicates either a targeted selection or a restricted data flow.
- BSI security warnings: The BSI takes a more application-oriented approach. Security alerts are often accompanied by specific recommendations for action for companies and authorities. In addition, the BSI often provides a national assessment of the threat situation, which represents an immediate added value for German organizations.
While the BSI focuses primarily on current threats and specific risks, the EUVD is more database-oriented and infrastructural. Whether this approach proves to be practicable in the long term depends largely on its integration into existing security processes and tools.
Conclusion: A useful addition – with reservations
The EUVD is a step towards European coordination in vulnerability management, but so far it is more of an additional source of information than a central reference source. The challenges in terms of data quality, timeliness and user-friendliness should be monitored critically.
Companies and security managers should see the EUVD as a supplementary tool – not as a replacement for existing sources such as the BSI, NVD or other industry-specific databases. Only when the database has reached a certain level of maturity and can be reliably integrated into security processes can it be established as a reliable element in compliance and risk management.