Articles 3(40)–(42) and 14(1) — three steps, one that files
Article 3(40) defines a vulnerability as a weakness, susceptibility or flaw of a product with digital elements that can be exploited by a cyber threat. Article 3(41) defines an exploitable vulnerability as one that has the potential to be effectively used by an adversary under practical operational conditions. Article 3(42) defines an actively exploited vulnerability as a vulnerability for which there is reliable evidence that a malicious actor has exploited it in a system without permission of the system owner.
Only the third triggers the mandatory Article 14(1) chain: the manufacturer shall notify any actively exploited vulnerability contained in the product with digital elements that it becomes aware of, via the Article 16 Single Reporting Platform, to the coordinating CSIRT and ENISA. A CVE for a flaw that is exploitable but not actively exploited in the Article 3(42) sense is a handling problem (and may be Article 15 voluntary later) — not an automatic 24-hour early warning. Related traps: CISA KEV ≠ automatic AEV, CVSS / EPSS ≠ automatic AEV, EUVD ≠ automatic AEV, OSV / GHSA ≠ automatic AEV, SBOM / CVE-in-SBOM ≠ automatic AEV, VEX / CSAF ≠ automatic AEV, public PoC / exploit code ≠ automatic AEV, zero-days / FAQ 5.2, and AEV vs severe incident.
What CVE and NVD actually are
A CVE ID is a public identifier for a disclosed vulnerability. The US National Vulnerability Database (NVD) and other catalogues enrich that ID with descriptions, scores and references. None of that catalogue machinery appears in Articles 3 or 14. Publication of a CVE means someone described a flaw — not that every product containing an affected component has reliable evidence of malicious exploitation under Article 3(42), and not that your SKU is in an affected configuration.
For third-party components, guidance point 218 (not binding) addresses not-reachable / not-exploited-in-your-product shapes — see Article 14 for third-party components. Score-driven dashboards that sit next to the CVE (CVSS, EPSS) are covered on the CVSS / EPSS guide.
The SRP CVE ID field is not the decision
When you do file an actively exploited vulnerability, ENISA’s platform and glossary ask for a CVE ID and EUVD ID where available. That is identification metadata for the notification stages — see the SRP fields checklist. Leaving the field blank when no ID exists yet is normal; inventing a duty because a scanner showed a new CVE badge is not. Walk the report shape in the vulnerability notification template. EUVD publication after a measure is available is a separate Article 17(5) path — see Article 14 and EUVD.
When the 24-hour clock starts
Article 14(2)(a) runs the early warning from the manufacturer becoming aware. The Regulation does not define awareness. Guidance point 213: assess suspicious events or third-party alerts immediately; awareness is when, after that initial assessment, you have a reasonable degree of certainty that a vulnerability contained in your product is being actively exploited. Point 214: circumstances vary, but the emphasis is prompt assessment — not waiting for a perfect patch or a board memo. A new CVE/NVD match is a reason to start that clock-starting assessment, not a reason to treat the NVD publication timestamp as awareness without product confirmation. Walkthrough: becoming aware; clocks in reporting deadlines.
The trap: CVE as the reporting rule
Two failure modes. First: playbooks say “new CVE → file CRA” and burn the 24-hour clock on every SBOM hit before version match, reachability and exploitation evidence are checked — flooding the SRP. Second: teams treat “no CVE yet” as a holiday even after reliable exploitation evidence arrives for a vulnerability contained in the product — exactly when Article 14(1)–(2) expect the AEV chain (final timed from corrective or mitigating measure available + 14 days under Article 14(2)(c); see corrective or mitigating measure). Record the assessment in the evidence log: CVE/NVD identifier (or “none yet”), SBOM/version match, reachability call, exploitation evidence relied on, and when reasonable certainty was reached.
Decision table
| Fact pattern | Article 14 AEV? |
|---|---|
| CVE on NVD; not in your SBOM / affected version | No Art 14(1) for that product (still watch other SKUs) |
| CVE + component in product, but vulnerable code not reachable (point 218 shape) | Usually not mandatory Art 14; assess + handle / upstream |
| New CVE published; assessment has not reached reasonable certainty of active exploitation | Triage signal only — not automatic 24h early warning |
| Contained + reachable + assessment reaches reasonable certainty of active exploitation (CVE or not) | Yes — start 24h / 72h AEV chain from awareness |
| Reliable exploitation evidence; no CVE assigned yet (or never) | Can still be Art 14(1) — CVE absence ≠ safe harbour |
| KEV / Critical CVSS / high EPSS / EUVD only (see KEV, CVSS / EPSS, EUVD, OSV / GHSA) | Same product test — catalogue/score ≠ automatic Art 3(42) |
Questions people ask
- Is every CVE in our SBOM reportable under Article 14?
- No. Article 14(1) requires notification of an actively exploited vulnerability contained in the product with digital elements. Article 3(42) defines that as a vulnerability for which there is reliable evidence that a malicious actor has exploited it in a system without permission of the system owner. A CVE ID (or an NVD row for that CVE) identifies a flaw; it does not by itself prove the CVE is in your product at an affected version, that the code is reachable, or that you have reached reasonable certainty of active exploitation in your product.
- Does the CRA mention CVE or NVD?
- No. Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 never names CVE or the US National Vulnerability Database. The legal ladder is Article 3(40) (vulnerability), Article 3(41) (exploitable vulnerability — potential under practical operational conditions), Article 3(42) (actively exploited), and Article 14(1) (contained in the product). CVE/NVD are industry identifiers and catalogues used in triage and in ENISA’s SRP vulnerability fields — not substitute decision rules.
- The SRP asks for a CVE ID. Does filling that field mean we must file?
- No. ENISA’s SRP guidance treats CVE ID and EUVD ID as vulnerability fields where available. They identify the flaw you are notifying. The decision to open an Article 14 chain still turns on Articles 3(42) and 14(1) after your product assessment — not on whether a CVE field exists in the form. Leaving the field blank when no ID exists yet is normal.
- What should a new CVE / NVD match on our components trigger?
- Immediate initial assessment, not an automatic SRP early warning. Commission guidance C(2026) 5252 point 213 (not binding) says that when a third party or other signal brings a potential vulnerability to your attention, you should assess immediately; you are regarded as aware when, after that assessment, you have a reasonable degree of certainty that a vulnerability contained in your product is being actively exploited. Point 214 stresses prompt action.
- Our component has a CVE but the vulnerable code is not reachable in our product. Still mandatory?
- Guidance point 218 (not binding) addresses third-party components: if you are aware that a component vulnerability cannot be exploited in your product (for example the vulnerable code is not reachable) or has not been exploited in your product, it does not qualify as an actively exploited vulnerability contained in that product for mandatory Article 14. You may still owe Annex I Part II handling (mostly from 11 December 2027) and Article 13(6) upstream notice once that package applies — see our third-party components and Article 13 vs Article 14 guides.
- Absence from NVD / no CVE assigned means we never have to report?
- No. Many actively exploited product flaws are reported before a CVE exists, or never receive one. Customer telemetry, researcher reports, your own detection, a CISA KEV listing, an EUVD entry, or other reliable exploitation evidence can meet Article 3(42) with no CVE/NVD row. Absence of a CVE is not evidence of non-exploitation.
- When did this duty start?
- Article 14 has applied from 11 September 2026 (Article 71(2)), including for in-scope products already on the market (Article 69(3)). CVE/NVD-driven triage is part of that live reporting duty — it is not postponed to the December 2027 Annex I conformity package.