CVSS, at least in its current form, needs to be taken out back and shot. See, for instance, https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2025/01/23/cvss-is-dead-to-us/

I like the idea of CVSS, but it's definitely less precise than I'd like as-is. e.g. I've found that most issues which I would normally think of as low-severity get bumped up to medium by CVSS just for being network-based attack vectors, even if the actual issue is extremely edge case, extremely complex and/or computationally expensive to exploit, or not clearly exploitable at all.

But Parquet is intended to be a safe format. So importing a malicious file should still be safe.

Like if a browser had a vulnerability parsing HTML of course it is a major concern because very often browsers to parse HTML from untrusted parties.

Why is "user interaction: none" though? There should be reasoning attached to the CVSS vector in these CVEs.

Probably because there are services (AKA web services, software listening on a network port, etc.) out there which accept arbitrary Parquet files. This seems like a safe assumption given lots of organizations use micro-services or cloud venders use the same software on the same machine to process requests from different customers. This is a bad bug and if you use the affected code, you should update immediately.

There's no such thing as CVE inflation because CVEs don't have scores. You're grumbling about CVSS inflation. But: CVSS has always been flawed, and never should have been taken seriously.

Those CVE numbers go up every year… Sounds like inflation to me! ;-)