Scope. This is a field-level mapping guide. We compared the CycloneDX JSON schemas for 1.6 and 1.7 (identical enums for the fields below), OpenVEX specification v0.2.0 and its JSON schema, and the CSAF 2.0 JSON schema and VEX profile text from the OASIS TC repository, then read how Trivy (main branch, commit 1d1ab074, November 2, 2026) consumes CycloneDX VEX. The converter below was run with Python 3.13; its output validated against the OpenVEX 0.2.0 JSON schema and its inputs against the CycloneDX 1.6 schema. Our VEX explainer covers what the statuses mean and how far to trust them; this article is only about moving statements between formats.
The short answer
If you receive CycloneDX VEX and your pipeline speaks OpenVEX or CSAF (or the reverse), the states map almost one-to-one, but the justifications do not.
CycloneDX analysis.state | OpenVEX status | CSAF product_status | Trivy (code) |
|---|---|---|---|
not_affected | not_affected | known_not_affected | not_affected |
false_positive | not_affected (no exact match) | known_not_affected (no exact match) | not_affected |
exploitable | affected | known_affected | affected |
in_triage | under_investigation | under_investigation | under_investigation |
resolved | fixed | fixed | fixed |
resolved_with_pedigree | fixed (pedigree evidence is lost) | fixed | fixed |
Of CycloneDX’s nine justifications, only code_not_present and code_not_reachable have a clear counterpart among the five CISA-derived labels that OpenVEX and CSAF share. Convert those two; carry the other seven as text.
Where VEX sits in a CycloneDX document
CycloneDX has no separate VEX document type. VEX is the vulnerabilities array of a BOM, and the fields that matter are:
id: the vulnerability identifier, such as a CVE ID.affects[].ref: what the statement is about. The schema allows abom-refin the same document or a BOM-Link element. A BOM-Link has the formurn:cdx:serialNumber/version#bom-ref, and the schema’s pattern requires the serial number UUID, a version of 1 or more, and a fragment.analysis.state: one ofresolved,resolved_with_pedigree,exploitable,in_triage,false_positive,not_affected.analysis.justification: one of nine reasons, described below.analysis.response: zero or more ofcan_not_fix,will_not_fix,update,rollback,workaround_available.analysis.detail: free text. The schema says that if a vulnerability is not exploitable, “this field should include specific details on why the component or service is not impacted.”
A VEX statement can sit inside the SBOM itself or in a separate BOM that only has vulnerabilities and refers back to the SBOM by BOM-Link. That second pattern matters for tooling, below.
States: four clean pairs and two lossy ones
The CycloneDX schema defines the six states in its meta:enum. Four map directly:
not_affected: “The component or service is not affected by the vulnerability. Justification should be specified for all not_affected cases.” This is OpenVEXnot_affectedand CSAFknown_not_affected.exploitable: “The vulnerability may be directly or indirectly exploitable.” This is OpenVEXaffectedand CSAFknown_affected.in_triage: “The vulnerability is being investigated.” This isunder_investigationin both.resolved: “The vulnerability has been remediated.” This isfixedin both.
Two lose meaning:
false_positive: “The vulnerability is not specific to the component or service and was falsely identified or associated.” OpenVEX and CSAF have no status for “the scanner was wrong”. The safe target isnot_affected, which is also what Trivy’scdxStatusfunction does (case cdx.IASFalsePositive, cdx.IASNotAffected: return types.FindingStatusNotAffected). Keep the wordfalse_positivein the impact statement so a reviewer can see it.resolved_with_pedigree: remediated “and evidence of the changes are provided in the affected components pedigree”. It becomesfixed, and the pointer to pedigree evidence is lost unless you keep it as text.
Justifications: two of nine line up
OpenVEX’s five justification labels come from CISA’s June 2022 status-justification document, and the CSAF 2.0 schema’s flags[].label uses the same five strings. CycloneDX defines a different set of nine. Here is each one with its CycloneDX definition and our reading of the closest OpenVEX/CSAF label.
CycloneDX justification | CycloneDX definition | OpenVEX / CSAF label | Our call |
|---|---|---|---|
code_not_present | “The code has been removed or tree-shaked.” | vulnerable_code_not_present | Map |
code_not_reachable | “The vulnerable code is not invoked at runtime.” | vulnerable_code_not_in_execute_path | Map |
requires_dependency | “Exploitability requires a dependency that is not present.” | none exact (component_not_present means the vulnerable component itself is absent) | Text |
requires_configuration | “Exploitability requires a configurable option to be set/unset.” | none | Text |
requires_environment | “Exploitability requires a certain environment which is not present.” | none | Text |
protected_by_compiler | “Exploitability requires a compiler flag to be set/unset.” | none exact | Text |
protected_at_runtime | “Exploits are prevented at runtime.” | inline_mitigations_already_exist only if the protection cannot be disabled | Text |
protected_at_perimeter | “Attacks are blocked at physical, logical, or network perimeter.” | none | Text |
protected_by_mitigating_control | “Preventative measures have been implemented that reduce the likelihood and/or impact of the vulnerability.” | none | Text |
Why so strict? The OpenVEX spec defines inline_mitigations_already_exist as built-in protections that “cannot be subverted by the attacker and cannot be configured or disabled by the user.” A CycloneDX protected_at_runtime or protected_by_compiler claim does not tell you that. protected_at_perimeter and protected_by_mitigating_control describe the deployment, not the product, and a mitigating control that “reduce[s] the likelihood and/or impact” is weaker than “not affected” in the CISA sense.
This mapping is our editorial reading of the published definitions. We did not find a mapping table published by the CycloneDX project or CISA.
OpenVEX gives you a way out: for not_affected, “a VEX statement MUST include either a status justification or an impact_statement.” So you can emit a not_affected statement with no label and an impact statement that preserves the original CycloneDX reason. CSAF’s VEX profile has the same escape hatch: each known_not_affected product needs either a machine-readable flag or a human-readable justification in threats with category impact.
Responses and action statements
For affected products, both targets require an action:
- OpenVEX: for
affected, “a VEX statement MUST include a statement that SHOULD describe actions to remediate or mitigate the vulnerability” (action_statement). - CSAF VEX profile: for
known_affected, “additional product specific information SHALL be provided in/vulnerabilities[]/remediationsas an action statement.”
CycloneDX’s response values give you a starting point. update and rollback fit CSAF’s vendor_fix remediation category, workaround_available fits workaround, and will_not_fix / can_not_fix fit no_fix_planned (or none_available), which the CSAF profile explicitly permits for an action statement. OpenVEX takes a free-text action_statement, so join the responses with analysis.detail. If an exploitable statement has neither a response nor detail, the converted statement will be valid but useless; send it back to the supplier.
BOM-Link: the part that silently drops statements
A CycloneDX VEX BOM that references components by BOM-Link is bound to one SBOM version. Trivy’s docs (v0.67) say the tool “only supports the Independent BOM and VEX BOM format, so you need to provide a separate VEX file alongside the SBOM,” that “BOM-Links must be placed in affects.ref,” and that the input SBOM must be CycloneDX. The usage example is trivy sbom trivy.sbom.cdx --vex trivy.vex.cdx. The feature is marked experimental.
Trivy’s code adds a detail the docs do not spell out: if the BOM-Link’s serial number or version does not equal the scanned SBOM’s, it logs URN doesn't match with SBOM and skips the statement. Regenerate the SBOM (new serial number or version) without regenerating the VEX, and every suppression stops applying. That fails safe, since findings come back rather than disappear, but it surprises teams.
OpenVEX has no BOM-Link. Products are identified by an @id such as a Package URL, so a converter has to resolve each BOM-Link to the referenced component’s purl in the SBOM. That is why the converter below takes both files.
A tested converter: CycloneDX VEX to OpenVEX
This Python 3 script reads a CycloneDX SBOM and a separate CycloneDX VEX BOM and writes an OpenVEX 0.2.0 document. It maps states as in the first table, maps only the two clean justifications, and keeps everything else as text. It is illustrative, not production-ready: it does not handle version ranges in affects[].versions, services, or nested BOMs beyond components.
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""Convert a CycloneDX VEX BOM (independent VEX, BOM-Link refs) to OpenVEX v0.2.0.
Usage: python3 cdx2openvex.py sbom.cdx.json vex.cdx.json author > out.openvex.json"""
import json, sys, hashlib
from datetime import datetime, timezone
STATUS = { # CycloneDX analysis.state -> OpenVEX status
"not_affected": "not_affected", "false_positive": "not_affected",
"exploitable": "affected", "in_triage": "under_investigation",
"resolved": "fixed", "resolved_with_pedigree": "fixed",
}
# Only the pairs whose definitions line up; everything else is carried as text.
JUSTIFICATION = {
"code_not_present": "vulnerable_code_not_present",
"code_not_reachable": "vulnerable_code_not_in_execute_path",
}
def purls_by_ref(sbom):
serial, version = sbom["serialNumber"], sbom.get("version", 1)
out, stack = {}, list(sbom.get("components", []))
while stack:
c = stack.pop()
if "bom-ref" in c and "purl" in c:
out[f"urn:cdx:{serial.removeprefix('urn:uuid:')}/{version}#{c['bom-ref']}"] = c["purl"]
stack.extend(c.get("components", []))
return out
def convert(sbom, vex, author):
refs, statements, problems = purls_by_ref(sbom), [], []
for v in vex.get("vulnerabilities", []):
a = v.get("analysis", {})
state = a.get("state")
if state not in STATUS:
problems.append(f"{v['id']}: no analysis.state, skipped"); continue
products = []
for af in v.get("affects", []):
purl = refs.get(af["ref"])
if purl: products.append({"@id": purl})
else: problems.append(f"{v['id']}: {af['ref']} not found in SBOM")
if not products: continue
s = {"vulnerability": {"name": v["id"]}, "products": products, "status": STATUS[state]}
detail = a.get("detail", "").strip()
if s["status"] == "not_affected":
j = JUSTIFICATION.get(a.get("justification"))
if j: s["justification"] = j
note = f"CycloneDX state={state}, justification={a.get('justification', 'none')}"
s["impact_statement"] = f"{note}. {detail}".strip()
elif s["status"] == "affected":
resp = ", ".join(a.get("response", [])) or "none given"
s["action_statement"] = f"CycloneDX response: {resp}. {detail}".strip()
statements.append(s)
body = json.dumps(statements, sort_keys=True).encode()
doc = {"@context": "https://openvex.dev/ns/v0.2.0",
"@id": "https://example.com/vex/" + hashlib.sha256(body).hexdigest()[:16],
"author": author,
"timestamp": datetime.now(timezone.utc).isoformat(timespec="seconds"),
"version": 1, "statements": statements}
return doc, problems
if __name__ == "__main__":
sbom, vex = (json.load(open(p)) for p in sys.argv[1:3])
doc, problems = convert(sbom, vex, sys.argv[3])
json.dump(doc, sys.stdout, indent=2)
for p in problems: print("WARN", p, file=sys.stderr)
Test run
We fed it a three-component CycloneDX 1.6 SBOM (log4j-core 2.14.1, jackson-databind 2.13.0, snakeyaml 1.30) and a VEX BOM with four statements. The assessments in the VEX are invented test data, not real vendor findings:
- CVE-2021-44228 on log4j-core:
not_affected,code_not_reachable. - CVE-2022-42003 on jackson-databind:
not_affected,requires_configuration. - CVE-2022-1471 on snakeyaml:
exploitable, responseupdate. - CVE-2021-44228 again, but with a BOM-Link naming SBOM version
2instead of1.
Both input files passed check-jsonschema against the CycloneDX 1.6 schema. The run printed one warning to stderr and three statements; the output validated against openvex_json_schema.json (v0.2.0) with the Python jsonschema package:
WARN CVE-2021-44228: urn:cdx:3e671687-395b-41f5-a30f-a58921a69b79/2#pkg-log4j not found in SBOM
The statements array of the output:
[
{
"vulnerability": { "name": "CVE-2021-44228" },
"products": [ { "@id": "pkg:maven/org.apache.logging.log4j/[email protected]" } ],
"status": "not_affected",
"justification": "vulnerable_code_not_in_execute_path",
"impact_statement": "CycloneDX state=not_affected, justification=code_not_reachable. JNDI lookups are never invoked; the app logs through SLF4J with Logback."
},
{
"vulnerability": { "name": "CVE-2022-42003" },
"products": [ { "@id": "pkg:maven/com.fasterxml.jackson.core/[email protected]" } ],
"status": "not_affected",
"impact_statement": "CycloneDX state=not_affected, justification=requires_configuration. The deserialization feature this issue depends on is disabled in our ObjectMapper configuration."
},
{
"vulnerability": { "name": "CVE-2022-1471" },
"products": [ { "@id": "pkg:maven/org.yaml/[email protected]" } ],
"status": "affected",
"action_statement": "CycloneDX response: update. Dependency upgrade ships in release 4.2."
}
]
The second statement is the important one: it stays not_affected with no invented label, and the reason survives as text. The fourth input statement was dropped with a warning instead of being applied to the wrong SBOM.
Common mistakes
- Mapping every
protected_*justification toinline_mitigations_already_exist. That label claims the protection cannot be disabled. A WAF rule or a compiler flag can. - Dropping
false_positivestatements because the target format has no matching status. Map them tonot_affectedand say why. - Dropping the
detailtext. It is often the only evidence a reviewer has, and both OpenVEX and CSAF have a place for it. - Reusing a VEX BOM after regenerating the SBOM. BOM-Links name an exact serial number and version.
- Treating converted VEX as first-party. Keep the original author. OpenVEX
authorshould be the organization that made the assessment, not the converter.
Where this fits
VEX is the “is my product actually affected” step in our vulnerability prioritization workflow, after the CVE record and before KEV, SSVC and EPSS. The SBOM that the VEX points at is covered in our guide to SBOM minimum elements in 2026. If you want a signal for which exploitable statements to fix first, our CVSS vs EPSS vs KEV comparison covers the trade-offs.
Limits of this article
The justification mapping is our reading of the published definitions; no standards body has published it. We read CSAF 2.0 from the OASIS TC’s GitHub repository (schema and editor’s draft prose) rather than the OASIS-hosted standard. We read Trivy’s main branch, not a tagged release, and its docs for v0.67; behaviour may differ in the version you run. We did not run Trivy itself or test the reverse conversion (OpenVEX or CSAF to CycloneDX), which is harder because CycloneDX affects needs a component reference the OpenVEX product may not resolve to.
Sources and verification
| Important claim | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|
| CycloneDX states, justifications, responses and their definitions; detail field; BOM-Link pattern | CycloneDX bom-1.6 / bom-1.7 JSON schemas | Verified |
BOM-Link syntax urn:cdx:serialNumber/version#bom-ref | CycloneDX BOM-Link | Verified |
| OpenVEX statuses, five justifications, justification or impact_statement rule, action_statement rule | OpenVEX spec v0.2.0 | Verified |
| CSAF product_status categories, flag labels, remediation categories | CSAF 2.0 JSON schema | Verified |
| CSAF VEX profile requirements for known_not_affected and known_affected | CSAF 2.0 prose, section 4.5 | Qualified (TC repository draft text) |
| Trivy maps false_positive to not_affected and skips BOM-Links that do not match the SBOM | Trivy pkg/vex/cyclonedx.go | Verified (main branch, 2026-11-02) |
| Trivy CycloneDX VEX: separate VEX BOM, BOM-Link in affects.ref, CycloneDX SBOM only, experimental | Trivy docs: VEX file | Verified |
| Converter output and schema validation | Our run, Python 3.13, jsonschema, check-jsonschema | Verified (code) |
Frequently asked questions
Where is VEX data in a CycloneDX document?
In the vulnerabilities array. Each vulnerability has an id, an affects list whose ref points at a component (by bom-ref in the same BOM or by BOM-Link to another BOM), and an analysis object with state, justification, response and detail.
What is the OpenVEX equivalent of CycloneDX false_positive?
There is none. CycloneDX defines false_positive as a vulnerability that was falsely identified or associated with the component. OpenVEX and CSAF have only not_affected, affected, fixed and under_investigation. Trivy maps false_positive to not_affected; a converter should do the same and keep the original state in the impact statement.
Does code_not_reachable mean the same as vulnerable_code_not_in_execute_path?
Close enough to map, in our reading. CycloneDX defines code_not_reachable as vulnerable code that is not invoked at runtime; OpenVEX's vulnerable_code_not_in_execute_path covers a product that includes the vulnerable code but does not call or use it.
Can Trivy read CycloneDX VEX?
Yes, as an experimental feature. Trivy's documentation says it supports only a separate VEX BOM alongside a CycloneDX SBOM, that BOM-Links must be placed in affects.ref, and that a not_affected state stops the vulnerability being reported.
