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

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%

CWE-327 (使用已被攻破或存在风险的密码学算法) — Vulnerability Class 256

256 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-2026-6411 MAXHUB Pivot Client Application Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — MAXHUB Pivot client application 7.3 High2026-05-07
CVE-2026-44405 Paramiko 加密问题漏洞 — Paramiko 3.4 Low2026-05-05
CVE-2026-32959 Silex SD-330AC和Silex AMC Manager 安全漏洞 — SD-330AC 5.9 Medium2026-04-20
CVE-2026-5588 PKIX draft CompositeVerifier accepts empty signature sequence as valid. — BC-JAVA 9.1 -2026-04-15
CVE-2025-14813 GOSTCTR implementation unable to process more than 255 blocks correctly — BC-JAVA 7.5 -2026-04-15
CVE-2025-14859 Semtech LR11xx Secure Boot Bypass — LR1110 4.2AIMediumAI2026-04-07
CVE-2026-5682 Meesho Online Shopping App com.meesho.supply endpoint risky encryption — Online Shopping App 3.7 Low2026-04-06
CVE-2026-34950 fast-jwt has an incomplete fix for CVE-2023-48223: JWT Algorithm Confusion via Whitespace-Prefixed RSA Public Key — fast-jwt 9.1 Critical2026-04-06
CVE-2025-13916 Multiple vulnerabilities have been addressed in IBM Aspera Shares — Aspera Shares 5.9 Medium2026-04-01
CVE-2019-25651 Ubiquiti UniFi Devices Use of AES-CBC Allows Key Recovery and Unauthorized Device Control — UniFi Network Controller 8.3 High2026-03-27
CVE-2026-28252 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm vulnerability in Trane Tracer SC, Tracer SC+, and Tracer Concierge — Tracer SC 9.8AICriticalAI2026-03-12
CVE-2025-41711 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm for firmware images of power analyzer — UMG 96RM-E 24V(5222063) 5.3 Medium2026-03-10
CVE-2026-28479 OpenClaw < 2026.2.15 - Cache Poisoning via Deprecated SHA-1 Hash in Sandbox Configuration — OpenClaw 7.5 High2026-03-05
CVE-2026-30791 RustDesk Client Accepts Pseudo-Encrypted Config Strings Without Cryptographic Validation — RustDesk Client 9.8 -2026-03-05
CVE-2026-3598 RustDesk Server Generates Config Strings Using Reversible Encoding (Base64 + Reverse) Instead of Encryption — RustDesk Server Pro 7.5 -2026-03-05
CVE-2025-14456 IBM MQ Appliance uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms — MQ Appliance 6.5AIMediumAI2026-03-03
CVE-2025-14480 IBM Aspera faspio Gateway 1.3.7 has addressed a vulnerability affected by weak cryptographic algorithms — Aspera faspio Gateway 5.1 Medium2026-03-03
CVE-2026-1627 SICK LMS1000和SICK MRS1000 安全漏洞 — SICK LMS1000 6.5 Medium2026-02-27
CVE-2026-1626 SICK LMS1000和SICK MRS1000 安全漏洞 — SICK LMS1000 6.5 Medium2026-02-27
CVE-2026-21718 Copeland XWEB and XWEB Pro Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — Copeland XWEB 300D PRO 10.0 Critical2026-02-27
CVE-2026-27804 Parse Server: Account takeover via JWT algorithm confusion in Google auth adapter — parse-server 9.8AICriticalAI2026-02-25
CVE-2024-43178 Multiple Vulnerabilities in IBM Concert Software. — Concert 5.9 Medium2026-02-17
CVE-2026-2618 Beetel 777VR1 SSH Service risky encryption — 777VR1 3.7 Low2026-02-17
CVE-2026-26219 newbee-mall Unsalted MD5 Password Hashing Enables Offline Credential Cracking — newbee-mall 9.1 Critical2026-02-12
CVE-2025-66597 Yokogawa FAST/TOOLS 安全漏洞 — FAST/TOOLS 7.5AIHighAI2026-02-09
CVE-2025-66598 Yokogawa FAST/TOOLS 安全漏洞 — FAST/TOOLS 7.5AIHighAI2026-02-09
CVE-2025-62514 `libparsec_crypto` does not check for weak order point of curve 25519 — parsec-cloud 8.3 High2026-01-29
CVE-2026-24785 Clatter has a PSK Validity Rule Violation issue — clatter 9.1AICriticalAI2026-01-27
CVE-2026-22585 Salesforce Marketing Cloud Engagement 安全漏洞 — Marketing Cloud Engagement 5.3 -2026-01-24
CVE-2025-58743 Insecure Encryption Algorithms Enable Brute-Force Database Credential Access in Milner ImageDirector Capture — ImageDirector Capture 8.4AIHighAI2026-01-20

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-327 (使用已被攻破或存在风险的密码学算法) represent 256 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.