CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
Cryptographic algorithms are the methods by which data is scrambled to prevent observation or influence by unauthorized actors. Insecure cryptography can be exploited to expose sensitive information, modify data in unexpected ways, spoof identities of other users or devices, or other impacts.
It is very difficult to produce a secure algorithm, and even high-profile algorithms by accomplished cryptographic experts have been broken. Well-known techniques exist to break or weaken various kinds of cryptography. Accordingly, there are a small number of well-understood and heavily studied algorithms that should be used by most products. Using a non-standard or known-insecure algorithm is dangerous because a determined adversary may be able to break the algorithm and compromise whatever data has been protected.
Since the state of cryptography advances so rapidly, it is common for an algorithm to be considered "unsafe" even if it was once thought to be strong. This can happen when new attacks are discovered, or if computing power increases so much that the cryptographic algorithm no longer provides the amount of protection that was originally thought.
For a number of reasons, this weakness is even more challenging to manage with hardware deployment of cryptographic algorithms as opposed to software implementation. First, if a flaw is discovered with hardware-implemented cryptography, the flaw cannot be fixed in most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary's computing power will only increase over time.
Modes of Introduction
Phase | Note |
---|---|
Architecture and Design | COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic. |
Implementation | With hardware, the Architecture or Design Phase might start with compliant cryptography, but it is replaced with a non-compliant crypto during the later Implementation phase due to implementation constraints (e.g., not enough entropy to make it function properly, or not enough silicon real estate available to implement). Or, in rare cases (especially for long projects that span over years), the Architecture specifications might start with cryptography that was originally compliant at the time the Architectural specs were written, but over the time it became non-compliant due to progress made in attacking the crypto. |
Applicable Platforms
Type | Class | Name | Prevalence |
---|---|---|---|
Language | Not Language-Specific | ||
Language | Verilog | ||
Language | VHDL | ||
Technology | Not Technology-Specific | ||
Technology | ICS/OT |
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
The Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPECâ„¢) effort provides a publicly available catalog of common attack patterns that helps users understand how adversaries exploit weaknesses in applications and other cyber-enabled capabilities.
CAPEC at Mitre.org# ID | Name | Weaknesses |
---|---|---|
CAPEC-20 | Encryption Brute Forcing | CWE-327 |
CAPEC-97 | Cryptanalysis | CWE-327 |
CAPEC-459 | Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate | CWE-327 |
CAPEC-473 | Signature Spoof | CWE-327 |
CAPEC-475 | Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation | CWE-327 |
CAPEC-608 | Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption | CWE-327 |
CAPEC-614 | Rooting SIM Cards | CWE-327 |
CVEs Published
CVSS Severity
CVSS Severity - By Year
CVSS Base Score
# CVE | Description | CVSS | EPSS | EPSS Trend (30 days) | Affected Products | Weaknesses | Security Advisories | Exploits | PoC | Pubblication Date | Modification Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
# CVE | Description | CVSS | EPSS | EPSS Trend (30 days) | Affected Products | Weaknesses | Security Advisories | PoC | Pubblication Date | Modification Date |