Goal Reached Thanks to every supporter — we hit 100%!

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1020 CNY

100%

CWE-327 (使用已被攻破或存在风险的密码学算法) — Vulnerability Class 258

258 vulnerabilities classified as CWE-327 (使用已被攻破或存在风险的密码学算法). AI Chinese analysis included.

CWE-327 represents a critical implementation weakness where software relies on deprecated, broken, or inherently risky cryptographic algorithms and protocols. This flaw typically allows attackers to exploit mathematical vulnerabilities or insufficient key lengths to decrypt sensitive data, forge digital signatures, or manipulate transmitted information without detection. By bypassing intended security controls, adversaries can expose confidential records, spoof user identities, or alter system states, leading to severe confidentiality and integrity breaches. To mitigate this risk, developers must rigorously validate cryptographic choices against current industry standards, such as NIST guidelines, ensuring the use of robust, modern algorithms like AES-GCM or SHA-256. Regular security audits and automated static analysis tools further help identify and replace obsolete cryptographic implementations before deployment, thereby maintaining strong data protection against evolving threat landscapes.

MITRE CWE Description
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol. 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 …
Common Consequences (3)
ConfidentialityRead Application Data
The confidentiality of sensitive data may be compromised by the use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm.
IntegrityModify Application Data
The integrity of sensitive data may be compromised by the use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm.
Accountability, Non-RepudiationHide Activities
If the cryptographic algorithm is used to ensure the identity of the source of the data (such as digital signatures), then a broken algorithm will compromise this scheme and the source of the data cannot be proven.
Mitigations (5)
Architecture and DesignWhen there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis. For example, US government systems require FIPS 1…
Architecture and DesignEnsure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms. With hardware, design the product at the Intellectual Property (IP) level so that one cryptographic algorithm can be replaced with another in the next generat…
Effectiveness: Defense in Depth
Architecture and DesignCarefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
Architecture and DesignUse a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Industry-standard implementations will save development time and may be more likely to avoid errors that can occur during implementation of cryptographic algorithms. Consider the ESAPI Encryption feature.
Implementation, Architecture and DesignWhen using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
Examples (2)
These code examples use the Data Encryption Standard (DES).
EVP_des_ecb();
Bad · C
Cipher des=Cipher.getInstance("DES..."); des.initEncrypt(key2);
Bad · Java
Suppose a chip manufacturer decides to implement a hashing scheme for verifying integrity property of certain bitstream, and it chooses to implement a SHA1 hardware accelerator for to implement the scheme.
The manufacturer chooses a SHA1 hardware accelerator for to implement the scheme because it already has a working SHA1 Intellectual Property (IP) that the manufacturer had created and used earlier, so this reuse of IP saves design cost.
Bad · Other
The manufacturer could have chosen a cryptographic solution that is recommended by the wide security community (including standard-setting bodies like NIST) and is not expected to be broken (or even better, weakened) within the reasonable life expectancy of the hardware product. In this case, the architects could have used SHA-2 or SHA-3, even if it meant that such choice would cost extra.
Good · Other
CVE IDTitleCVSSSeverityPublished
CVE-2023-30441 IBM Java information disclosure — Java 7.5 High2023-04-29
CVE-2023-27557 IBM Safter Payments information disclosure — Safer Payments 5.9 Medium2023-04-28
CVE-2023-28244 Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability — Windows Server 2019 8.1 High2023-04-11
CVE-2023-28509 Weak encryption in UniRPC protocol — UniData 7.5 -2023-03-29
CVE-2023-22812 SanDisk PrivateAccess Deprecated TLS protocol versions supported — PrivateAccess 7.4 High2023-03-24
CVE-2023-23695 Dell EMC Secure Connect Gateway 加密问题漏洞 — Secure Connect Gateway (SCG) 5.0 Appliance - SRS 5.9 Medium2023-02-17
CVE-2022-22564 Dell EMC Unity 加密问题漏洞 — Unity 5.9 Medium2023-02-14
CVE-2022-34444 Dell PowerScale OneFS 加密问题漏洞 — PowerScale OneFS 5.9 Medium2023-02-10
CVE-2022-35720 IBM Sterling External Authentication Server information disclosure — Sterling External Authentication Server 2.3 Low2023-02-08
CVE-2022-22462 IBM Security Verify Governance, Identity Manager virtual appliance component information disclosure — Security Verify Governance 3.7 Low2023-01-25
CVE-2022-43917 IBM WebSphere Application Server information disclosure — WebSphere Application Server 5.9 Medium2023-01-25
CVE-2023-0296 etcd 加密问题漏洞 — Red Hat OpenShift 5.3 -2023-01-17
CVE-2022-23539 jsonwebtoken unrestricted key type could lead to legacy keys usage — node-jsonwebtoken 5.9 Medium2022-12-22
CVE-2022-22461 IBM Security Verify Governance, Identity Manager information disclosure — Security Verify Governance, Identity Manager 5.9 Medium2022-12-22
CVE-2022-38391 IBM Spectrum Control information disclosure — Spectrum Control 5.1 Medium2022-12-20
CVE-2022-27581 SICK RFU61x 加密问题漏洞 — SICK RFU61x Firmware 6.5 -2022-12-13
CVE-2022-46140 Siemens部分产品 加密问题漏洞 — RUGGEDCOM RM1224 LTE(4G) EU 6.5 Medium2022-12-13
CVE-2022-46832 SICK RFU61x 加密问题漏洞 — SICK RFU62x Firmware 6.5 -2022-12-13
CVE-2022-46833 SICK RFU63x 加密问题漏洞 — SICK RFU63x Firmware 6.5 -2022-12-13
CVE-2022-46834 SICK RFU61x 加密问题漏洞 — SICK RFU65x Firmware 6.5 -2022-12-13
CVE-2022-34361 IBM Sterling Secure Proxy information disclosure — Sterling Secure Proxy 5.9 Medium2022-12-06
CVE-2022-34320 IBM CICS TX information disclosure — CICS TX 5.9 Medium2022-11-14
CVE-2022-34319 IBM CICS TX information disclosure — CICS TX 5.9 Medium2022-11-14
CVE-2021-27784 HCL Launch container images may contain non-unique https certificates and database encryption key — HCL Launch 5.9 Medium2022-10-31
CVE-2021-3979 Red Hat Ceph Storage 授权问题漏洞 — ceph 4.0 -2022-08-25
CVE-2022-31157 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in packbackbooks/lti-1-3-php-library — lti-1-3-php-library 7.5 High2022-07-15
CVE-2022-34757 Schneider Electric Easergy P5 加密问题漏洞 — Easergy P5 6.7 Medium2022-07-13
CVE-2022-31230 Dell PowerScale OneFS 加密问题漏洞 — PowerScale OneFS 8.1 High2022-06-28
CVE-2022-29249 Reversible One-Way Hash and Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in io.github.javaezlib.JavaEZ — JavaEZ 7.5 High2022-05-24
CVE-2022-29217 Key confusion through non-blocklisted public key formats in PyJWT — pyjwt 7.4 High2022-05-24

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-327 (使用已被攻破或存在风险的密码学算法) represent 258 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.