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-2022-1252 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in gnuboard/gnuboard5 — gnuboard/gnuboard5 8.2 High2022-04-11
CVE-2022-26854 Dell Technologies Dell PowerScale OneFS 加密问题漏洞 — PowerScale OneFS 8.1 High2022-04-08
CVE-2021-33018 Philips Vue PACS Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — Vue PACS 7.5 High2022-04-01
CVE-2022-21800 Airspan Networks Mimosa Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — MMP 6.5 Medium2022-02-18
CVE-2013-20003 Z-Wave 安全特征问题漏洞 — Z-Wave 7.5 -2022-02-04
CVE-2021-41835 Fresenius Kabi Agilia Connect Infusion System use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm — Agilia Link+ 7.3 High2022-01-21
CVE-2021-31562 Fresenius Kabi Agilia Connect Infusion System use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm — Agilia Link+ 6.5 Medium2022-01-21
CVE-2021-33846 Fresenius Kabi Agilia Connect Infusion System use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm — Vigilant Software Suite (Mastermed Dashboard) 5.9 Medium2022-01-21
CVE-2021-43550 Philips Patient Information Center iX (PIC iX) and Efficia CM Series Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — Efficia CM Series 5.9 Medium2021-12-27
CVE-2021-41278 Broken encryption in app-functions-sdk “AES” transform in EdgeX Foundry releases prior to Jakarta allows attackers to decrypt messages via unspecified vectors — app-functions-sdk-go 7.5 -2021-11-18
CVE-2021-39182 Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort and Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm and Reversible One-Way Hash in hashing.py — EnroCrypt 7.5 High2021-11-08
CVE-2021-36298 Dell EMC IsilonSD Management Server 加密问题漏洞 — Isilon InsightIQ 8.1 High2021-10-01
CVE-2021-41096 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in com.mayank.rucky — Rucky 7.5 High2021-09-27
CVE-2021-27913 Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — Mautic 3.5 Low2021-08-30
CVE-2021-22738 Schneider Electric homeLYnk和spaceLYnk 加密问题漏洞 — homeLYnk (Wiser For KNX) and spaceLYnk V2.60 and prior 9.8 -2021-05-26
CVE-2021-20305 Linux Nettle 缓冲区错误漏洞 — nettle 8.1 -2021-04-05
CVE-2021-3446 Arch Linux libtpms 安全特征问题漏洞 — libtpms 5.5 -2021-03-25
CVE-2019-14852 红帽 3scale 加密问题漏洞 — apicast 7.5 -2021-03-18
CVE-2020-25232 Siemens LOGO! 8 BM 加密问题漏洞 — LOGO! 8 BM (incl. SIPLUS variants) 7.5 -2020-12-14
CVE-2020-25230 Siemens LOGO! 8 BM 加密问题漏洞 — LOGO! 8 BM (incl. SIPLUS variants) 7.5 -2020-12-14
CVE-2020-7339 Database Security(DBS)-Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm — Database Security 6.3 Medium2020-12-09
CVE-2020-25694 PostgreSQL 加密问题漏洞 — postgresql 8.1 -2020-11-16
CVE-2020-27652 Synology DiskStation Manager 加密问题漏洞 — DiskStation Manager (DSM) 8.3 High2020-10-29
CVE-2020-27653 Synology Router Manager 加密问题漏洞 — Synology Router Manager (SRM) 8.3 High2020-10-29
CVE-2020-11031 Insecure encryption algorithm in GLPI — GLPI 7.8 High2020-09-23
CVE-2020-8911 CBC padding oracle in AWS S3 Crypto SDK for GoLang — AWS S3 Crypto SDK for GoLang 5.6 Medium2020-08-11
CVE-2020-8912 In-band key negotiation issue in AWS S3 Crypto SDK for GoLang — AWS S3 Crypto SDK for GoLang 2.5 Low2020-08-11
CVE-2020-10927 NETGEAR R6700 加密问题漏洞 — R6700 8.8 -2020-07-28
CVE-2020-7514 Schneider Electric Easergy Builder 加密问题漏洞 — Easergy Builder (Version 1.4.7.2 and older) 7.8 -2020-07-23
CVE-2020-7511 Schneider Electric Easergy T300 加密问题漏洞 — Easergy T300 (Firmware version 1.5.2 and older) 7.5 -2020-06-16

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.