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

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%
Buy Us a Coffee

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-2020-11035 weak CSRF tokens in GLPI — GLPI 7.5 High2020-05-05
CVE-2019-15795 python-apt uses MD5 for validation — Python-apt 4.7 Medium2020-03-26
CVE-2020-7001 Moxa EDS-G516E和EDS-510E 加密问题漏洞 — Moxa EDS-G516E Series firmware, Version 5.2 or lower 7.5 -2020-03-24
CVE-2020-6987 Moxa PT-7528和PT-7828 加密问题漏洞 — Moxa PT-7528 series firmware, Version 4.0 or lower, PT-7828 series firmware, Version 3.9 or lower 7.5 -2020-03-24
CVE-2020-6984 多款Rockwell Automation产品加密问题漏洞 — Rockwell Automation MicroLogix 1400 Controllers Series B v21.001 and prior, Series A, all versions, MicroLogix 1100 Controller, all versions, RSLogix 500 Software v12.001 and prior 7.5 -2020-03-16
CVE-2020-5229 Opencast stores passwords using outdated MD5 hash algorithm — opencast 7.7 High2020-01-30
CVE-2019-3700 yast: Fallback to DES without configuration in /etc/login.def — Factory 2.9 Low2020-01-24
CVE-2019-18340 Siemens SiNVR 3 Central Control Server和SiNVR 3 Video Server 加密问题漏洞 — Control Center Server (CCS) 5.5 Medium2019-12-12
CVE-2019-10929 多款Siemens产品加密问题漏洞 — SIMATIC CP 1626 5.9 -2019-08-13
CVE-2016-5431 Gree PHP JOSE Library 加密问题漏洞 — jose-php 7.5 -2019-08-07
CVE-2019-1828 Cisco Small Business RV320 and RV325 Routers Weak Credential Encryption Vulnerability — Cisco Small Business RV Series Router Firmware 8.1 -2019-04-04
CVE-2019-7477 SonicWall SonicOS和SonicOSv 加密问题漏洞 — SonicOS 5.9 -2019-04-02
CVE-2019-3818 Linux kernel 加密问题漏洞 — kube-rbac-proxy 7.5 -2019-02-05
CVE-2019-0030 Juniper ATP: Password hashing uses DES and a hardcoded salt — Juniper ATP 9.8 -2019-01-15
CVE-2018-5382 Bouncy Castle BKS-V1 keystore files vulnerable to trivial hash collisions — Bouncy Castle 7.8 -2018-04-16
CVE-2017-5243 Rapid7 Nexpose 安全漏洞 — Nexpose hardware appliance 8.5 -2017-06-06

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.