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-2024-21670 CL-Signatures Revocation Scheme in Ursa has flaws that allow a holder to demonstrate non-revocation of a revoked credential — ursa 6.5 Medium2024-01-16
CVE-2023-28053 Dell NetWorker 安全漏洞 — NetWorker Virtual Edition 5.3 Medium2023-12-18
CVE-2022-43843 IBM Spectrum Scale information disclosure — Spectrum Scale 5.9 Medium2023-12-14
CVE-2021-27795 License forgery in Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) hardware platforms running any version of Brocade Fabric OS software, — Brocade Switches 6.4 Medium2023-12-06
CVE-2022-24403 De-anonymization attack in TETRA — TETRA Standard 4.3 Medium2023-12-05
CVE-2023-26024 IBM Planning Analytics on Cloud Pak for Data information disclosure — Planning Analytics on Cloud Pak for Data 6.5 Medium2023-12-01
CVE-2023-38361 IBM CICS TX Advanced information disclosure — CICS TX Advanced 5.9 Medium2023-11-18
CVE-2023-47640 Insecure Use of HMAC-SHA1 For Session Signing in datahub — datahub 6.4 Medium2023-11-14
CVE-2023-30994 IBM QRadar SIEM information disclosure — QRadar SIEM 5.4 Medium2023-10-14
CVE-2023-39252 Dell EMC SCG Policy Manager 加密问题漏洞 — Secure Connect Gateway (SCG) Policy Manager 5.9 Medium2023-09-21
CVE-2023-38730 IBM Spectrum Copy Data Management information disclosure — Spectrum Copy Data Management 5.9 Medium2023-08-27
CVE-2023-40371 IBM AIX information disclosure — AIX 6.2 Medium2023-08-24
CVE-2023-4326 Broadcom RAID Controller web interface is vulnerable has an insecure default TLS configuration that supports obsolete SHA1-based ciphersuites — LSI Storage Authority (LSA) 9.1 -2023-08-15
CVE-2023-4331 Broadcom RAID Controller web interface is vulnerable has an insecure default TLS configuration that support obsolete and vulnerable TLS protocols — LSI Storage Authority (LSA) 9.1 -2023-08-15
CVE-2023-37484 Information Disclosure Vulnerabilities in SAP PowerDesigner — SAP PowerDesigner 5.3 Medium2023-08-08
CVE-2021-38933 IBM Sterling Connect:Express for UNIX information disclosure — Sterling Connect:Express for UNIX 5.9 Medium2023-07-19
CVE-2023-37464 Incorrect Authentication Tag length usage in AES GCM decryption in OpenIDC/cjose — cjose 8.6 High2023-07-14
CVE-2023-34130 SonicWALL Analytics和GMS 加密问题漏洞 — GMS 7.5 -2023-07-13
CVE-2023-32043 Windows Remote Desktop Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability — Windows 10 Version 1809 6.8 Medium2023-07-11
CVE-2023-36749 Siemens RUGGEDCOM ROX 加密问题漏洞 — RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 7.4 High2023-07-11
CVE-2023-35890 IBM WebSphere Application Server information disclosure — WebSphere Application Server 5.1 Medium2023-07-07
CVE-2023-36608 Ovarro TBox RTUs 加密问题漏洞 — TBox MS-CPU32 6.5 Medium2023-07-03
CVE-2023-26276 IBM QRadar information disclosure — Security QRadar SIEM 5.9 Medium2023-06-27
CVE-2022-43949 Fortinet FortiSIEM 加密问题漏洞 — FortiSIEM 5.9 Medium2023-06-13
CVE-2023-28043 Dell EMC SCG Policy Manager 加密问题漏洞 — Secure Connect Gateway 6.5 Medium2023-06-01
CVE-2023-28076 Dell CloudLink 加密问题漏洞 — CloudLink 5.9 Medium2023-05-16
CVE-2022-22313 IBM QRadar Data Synchronization App information disclosure — QRadar Data Synchronization App 4.4 Medium2023-05-06
CVE-2022-45858 Fortinet FortiNAC 加密问题漏洞 — FortiNAC 3.8 Medium2023-05-03
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

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.