Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Sign up
Appearance settings

Changes in score counting in UI #2322

Unanswered
carlosthe19916 asked this question in Q&A
Discussion options

Context:

UI e2e tests consequences:

  • Testing of quarkus-bom vulnerability count changed:

    • From: 0 critical, 2 high, 13 medium, 1 low, 0 none, 0 unknown
    • To: 0 critical, 3 high, 10 medium, 1 low, 0 none, 2 unknown
  • Old request: GET /api/v2/sbom/{id}/advisory response: old.json

  • New request: GET /api/v3/sbom/{id}/advisory new.json

API Response Diff: old.json vs new.json

1. base_score is null for 3 items

These items had average_score/average_severity values in the old format but have base_score: null in the new:

Identifier Old score Old severity
CVE-2024-26308 5.5 medium
#CVE-2023-0044 5.3 medium
#CVE-2023-33201 5.3 medium

2. Score/Severity Value Differences

For 5 items, the base_score values differ from the old average_score/average_severity:

Identifier Old score → New score Old severity → New severity Reason
GHSA-j288-q9x7-2f5v 6.5 → 5.3 medium → medium Different base score
GHSA-prj3-ccx8-p6x4 7.5 → 8.2 high → high Uses CVSS 4.0 instead of 3.1
#CVE-2023-24815 5.3 → 4.8 medium → medium Different base score
#CVE-2023-2976 4.4 → 5.5 medium → medium Different base score
#CVE-2023-34455 5.9 → 7.5 medium → high Both score and severity changed

This suggests the old average_score was computed (e.g., averaging across all CVSS scores), while the new base_score picks a specific score (likely the highest-versioned CVSS or a designated "base").

3. One modified Date Change

CVE-2024-26308 status modified date changed: 2025年03月27日T19:10:43.565Z2024年08月02日T00:07:19.215Z (went backwards).

You must be logged in to vote

Replies: 8 comments 12 replies

Comment options

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

I'm confused. It would be good if those tests would be in the trustify repo, so that we could find and fix such discrepancies when making backend changes. But I see the point that the UI needs tests too.

What I find weird is that the modified should have changed, as there was no change regarding that.

Just peeking at the first, CVE-2024-26308 doesn't have a CNA score, just and ADP one. Feels like having none as "base" makes sense in this case. But there could be additional ones.

You must be logged in to vote
1 reply
Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 10, 2026
Collaborator Author

I'm confused. It would be good if those tests would be in the trustify repo, so that we could find and fix such discrepancies when making backend changes. But I see the point that the UI needs tests too.

With AI it should be straightforward to create similar tests based on the ones that the UI has, but focusing only in the REST APIs. That's would be a good idea I think.

Just peeking at the first, CVE-2024-26308 doesn't have a CNA score, just and ADP one. Feels like having none as "base" makes sense in this case. But there could be additional ones.

So having base_score: null for CVE-2024-26308 seems correct right? No problem, thanks for the confirmation

Comment options

CVE-2024-26308 doesn't seem to have any score.

For GHSA-j288-q9x7-2f5v I see a base score of 5.3 which is correct (but from the ADP) and a score of 6.5 from the advisory, which is correct too.

I did notice however, that the base score between the vulnerability and the "status" differs by the fact that one seems to include the ADP, while the other doesn't.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

The modified date is indeed interesting, as this is the modification date from an ADP entry. which shouldn't affect the entry at all.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Comment options

@carlosthe19916 which version did you compare? I assume "new" is the most recent main. What is "old"?

You must be logged in to vote
1 reply
Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 10, 2026
Collaborator Author

Old: GET /api/v2/sbom/{id}/advisory
New: GET /api/v3/sbom/{id}/advisory

So new is the most recent changes from main branch

And Old is the main branch without All the commits from today 10th April (around 14 commits) added today

Comment options

What exactly is the "quarkus-bom"? Is it quarkus-bom-2.13.8.Final-redhat-00004.json.bz2?

You must be logged in to vote
2 replies
Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 10, 2026
Collaborator Author

The link to the sbom is in my comment above

Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 10, 2026
Collaborator Author

Comment options

I just reproduced the setup. Ingesting all advisories. Ingesting quarkus-bom-2.13.8.Final-redhat-00004.json.bz2. However, I get different results. And those look correct.

I'd like to understand how you ingest documents. As something seems off.

You must be logged in to vote
8 replies
Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 13, 2026
Collaborator Author

Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 13, 2026
Collaborator Author

Ultimately is this function the one that uploads files https://github.com/guacsec/trustify-ui/blob/main/e2e/tests/api/helpers/general-helpers.ts#L5-L24

It is doing a POST to return /api/v2/{"sbom|advisory"} using "Content-Type": contentType

Comment options

I'm neither a JS nor axios expert. How does it work?

Comment options

carlosthe19916 Apr 13, 2026
Collaborator Author

Here is a plain curl script that does the same:

upload.zip

Comment options

That looks like it's loading them one by one. I did that, and can't seem to reproduce the issue though.

Comment options

This looks to me like a data issue. The test set contains a CVE file twice for the same CVE:

Depending on the order of ingestion, the tests fail or not.

A CVE project file however should not he there twice. But should be ingested in the correct order of being updated. That is ensured by the way CVE projects files are distributed.

My recommendation would be to fix the test data, and then test again, in order to verify.

You must be logged in to vote
0 replies
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Category
Q&A
Labels
None yet
Converted from issue

This discussion was converted from issue #2321 on April 10, 2026 12:26.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /