In certain instances, we may earn revenue when a reader makes a purchase or completes a form through our pages or on a partner’s website. We adhere to a strict 
The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) became one of 453 CVE Numbering Authorities in January 2024 and launched the European Union Vulnerability Database (EUVD) as a beta product in April 2025 under the NIS2 Directive. The launch represents a major leap in Europe’s push for cybersecurity independence.
The EUVD addresses growing concerns about excessive reliance on infrastructure systems outside the EU, such as MITRE’s Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program.
Focusing on security vulnerability management, it builds upon earlier milestones, such as the Data Privacy Act (GDPR) launched in 2018. Centralizing the EUVD within Europe reduces dependency on US-based frameworks while promoting regional security collaboration.
The EUVD signals a decisive move to localize cyber risk oversight, so here’s everything you should know about Europe’s answer to CVE.
Key Takeaways
- EUVD strengthens Europe’s cybersecurity autonomy by reducing reliance on US-based systems like MITRE’s CVE program.
- Launched under the NIS2 Directive, EUVD centralizes vulnerability data to support real-time threat awareness and coordinated response across the EU.
- The database aggregates verified vulnerabilities from global CERTs, vendors, open-source platforms, and public advisories for comprehensive coverage.
- ENISA mandates detailed Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) reports to ensure accuracy, transparency, and effective remediation strategies.
- EUVD supports compliance with the Cyber Resilience Act while enhancing collaboration between regulators, suppliers, and security teams across sectors.
A Strong Defense Against Cyber Threats
The EUVD aggregates and integrates vulnerability information from various sources, including pulling in raw data, filtering the noise, cross-checking for duplicates, and linking it.
Sources span global CERTs, open-source projects, security blogs, and private sector alerts.
While the current focus is on ICT vulnerabilities, there are indications that the platform will expand its coverage as new regulatory requirements (such as those covering IoT and telecom under the Cyber Resilience Act) emerge. The goal? A single pane of glass for real-time vulnerability awareness.
Sources
- Established vulnerability databases such as MITRE’s Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) program
- The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog
- Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) across the EU
- Vendors and suppliers of ICT products and services
- Public open-source databases and advisories
ENISA Vulnerability Disclosure Requirements
The EUVD exploit database is more than just a list of bugs. It’s the who, what, when, where, and how of security flaws – it’s a comprehensive reporting framework.
A submitted Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure (CVD) report should include, at a minimum, the following information:
Think of it as a digital autopsy report for vulnerabilities. Short, sharp facts that help security teams from all sides, Red, Blue, or Orange, act fast and stay ahead of the game.
- Asset identification: The vulnerability assessment pinpoints the location of security weaknesses, whether a web page, IP address, individual control, or product.
- Version or configuration: A vulnerability can affect specific product versions and configurations, so the CVD must identify which ones are susceptible to the security flaw.
- Weakness description: Identified software vulnerabilities are classified under the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE).
- Severity assessment: Security teams calculate vulnerability severity scores using industry-standard frameworks like CVSS to determine which threats need immediate attention.
- Detailed description: The vulnerability report must include a comprehensive description of the security flaw, the steps required to reproduce it, appropriate system configurations to address the flaw, and the recommended mitigation strategies.
- Potential impact: An assessment of how the vulnerability might impact systems, data, and business operations will help prioritize remediation efforts.
- Manufacturer notification: A check is made to see if anyone has submitted a formal request for a CVE identifier to track a vulnerability.
- CVE request: The current status of requesting a CVE ID number should be clearly documented.
- Contact information: Balance accessibility with security when sharing contact information. Make it easy for legitimate contacts while protecting against misuse. Contact information should include secure communication options (PGP fingerprint, etc.)
- Additional information: Document all relevant details, context, and potential impacts of the discovered vulnerability to enable a thorough assessment and effective remediation.
A vulnerability or issue is disclosed to the public only after the responsible parties have had enough time to patch, test, and roll out a solution. This way, users stay safer, and panic is avoided. It’s about balance, security, and transparency working together.
The Winds of Change
It’s incredible to think that security practitioners, managed security service providers (MSSPs), and risk management teams have had access to 279,000 catalogued CVEs, relying on the MITRE CVE system for 25 years (Since September 1999). So, why do they need another system?
There were rumors of a lack of funding and contractual issues with MITRE. However, according to a statement on the CISA website:
“As of April 16, 2025, the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has extended funding for the MITRE CVE Program for another year. CISA is fully committed to sustaining and improving this critical cyber infrastructure.”
Europe has relied on US-controlled systems for decades to manage its digital risk. However, when it seemed that MITRE’s CVE vulnerability management program might end, the EU didn’t just patch the gap; they built a parallel highway.
There’s a historical comparison to be made here – do you remember what happened with GPS? For years, the world relied on American satellite systems. But then came Galileo, Europe’s answer, launched not because GPS wasn’t working but because it was American. Therefore, seeing the EUVD as cybersecurity’s Galileo doesn’t seem too much of a stretch.
The assumption had always been that vulnerability data was neutral and apolitical. But in 2025, the EUVD revealed that even something as mundane as a database of software bugs could become a symbol of digital independence.
Core Benefits of the EUVD
The EUVD transforms cybersecurity practices for EU organizations by providing a centralized hub of vulnerability information.
This fully featured, comprehensive database aggregates critical data about ICT product and service vulnerabilities, including severity levels, exploitation status, and mitigation steps.
Organizations across all business sectors can now access reliable, actionable intelligence to identify and address security risks more effectively while meeting compliance requirements under the NIS2 Directive and Cyber Resilience Act.
EUVD promotes transparency and collaboration through public access to vulnerability data and automated integration with security frameworks, such as the Common Security Advisory Framework (CSAF).
The system enables efficient information sharing between suppliers, users, authorities, and researchers, supporting coordinated responses to new and existing threats.
Organizations also benefit from specialized dashboards that highlight critical security vulnerabilities. This leads to improved coordination with regulators and security authorities, enhancing their defensive capabilities.
The Bottom Line
The European National Vulnerability Database represents more than a tactical response. It’s a significant shift in cybersecurity strategy.
ENISA has moved beyond its role as a CNA. With its EUVD tracking technical security vulnerabilities, it has established itself as a regional digital sovereignty.
The timing of the platform’s launch, coinciding with uncertainty around MITRE’s CVE contractual continuation, demonstrates Europe’s proactive stance on cybersecurity defense and self-reliance. While CISA extended MITRE’s funding, the EUVD continues Europe’s pattern of developing independent critical infrastructure systems.
The success of this platform will depend on widespread adoption by EU organizations and effective integration with existing security frameworks. As cyber threats evolve, the EUVD positions Europe to react more effectively to future cybersecurity challenges. Will other countries adopt a similar stance?
