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-2024-10405 Weak TLS Ciphers on Brocade SANnav port 443 & 18082 — Brocade SANnav 7.5 -2025-02-14
CVE-2024-49797 IBM ApplinX Information Disclosure — ApplinX 5.9 Medium2025-02-05
CVE-2022-3365 Emote Interactive Remote Mouse Server command injection due to weak encoding — Remote Mouse Server 9.8 -2025-01-28
CVE-2024-27256 IBM MQ Operator information disclosure — MQ Operator 5.9 Medium2025-01-27
CVE-2024-38320 IBM Storage Protect for Virtual Environments: Data Protection for VMware information disclosure — Storage Protect for Virtual Environments: Data Protection for VMware 5.9 Medium2025-01-27
CVE-2024-22347 IBM UrbanCode Velocity information disclosure — UrbanCode Velocity 5.9 Medium2025-01-20
CVE-2024-8603 B&R Automation Runtime 加密问题漏洞 — Automation Runtime 7.5 High2025-01-15
CVE-2024-52366 IBM Concert Software information disclosure — Concert Software 5.9 Medium2025-01-07
CVE-2024-41763 IBM Engineering Lifecycle Optimization - Publishing information disclosure — Engineering Lifecycle Optimization Publishing 5.9 Medium2025-01-04
CVE-2024-47921 Smadar SPS – CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — SPS 8.4 High2024-12-30
CVE-2024-55539 Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Agent 加密问题漏洞 — Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud Agent 9.8 -2024-12-23
CVE-2024-28980 Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines 加密问题漏洞 — RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines 6.5 Medium2024-12-13
CVE-2024-53845 AES/CBC Constant IV Vulnerability in ESPTouch v2 — esp-idf 7.5 -2024-12-11
CVE-2023-37395 IBM Aspera Faspex information disclosure — Aspera Faspex 2.5 Low2024-12-11
CVE-2024-41775 IBM Cognos Controller information disclosure — Cognos Controller 5.9 Medium2024-12-03
CVE-2024-52801 Brute force takeover of OpenID Connect session cookies in sftpgo — sftpgo 6.5 -2024-11-29
CVE-2022-43934 Weak Key-exchange algorithms — SANnav 6.5 Medium2024-11-21
CVE-2024-43189 IBM Concert Software information disclosure — Concert Software 5.9 Medium2024-11-15
CVE-2024-51556 Sensitive Information Disclosure Vulnerability in Wave 2.0 — Wave 2.0 6.5AIMediumAI2024-11-04
CVE-2024-51478 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in YesWiki — yeswiki 9.9 Critical2024-10-31
CVE-2024-10128 Topdata Inner Rep Plus WebServer td.js.gz risky encryption — Inner Rep Plus WebServer 2.7 Low2024-10-18
CVE-2024-48016 Dell Secure Connect Gateway 加密问题漏洞 — Secure Connect Gateway (SCG) 5.0 Appliance - SRS 4.6 Medium2024-10-18
CVE-2024-8452 PLANET Technology switch devices - Insecure hash functions used for SNMPv3 credentials — GS-4210-24PL4C hardware 2.0 7.5 High2024-09-30
CVE-2024-39583 Dell InsightIQ 加密问题漏洞 — PowerScale InsightIQ 8.1 High2024-09-10
CVE-2024-37068 IBM Maximo Application Suite information disclosure — Maximo Application Suite 5.9 Medium2024-09-07
CVE-2024-39745 IBM Sterling Connect:Direct Web Services information disclosure — Sterling Connect:Direct Web Services 5.9 Medium2024-08-22
CVE-2024-28972 Dell InsightIQ 加密问题漏洞 — InsightIQ 5.9 Medium2024-08-01
CVE-2024-39731 IBM Datacap Navigator information disclosure — Datacap Navigator 5.9 Medium2024-07-15
CVE-2024-30098 Windows Cryptographic Services Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability — Windows Server 2025 (Server Core installation) 7.5 High2024-07-09
CVE-2023-41928 Remote server offers deprecated TLS protocol in Kiloview P1/P2 devices — P1/P2 5.3 Medium2024-07-02

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.