Weakness (CWE)
CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
More detail
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 most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary's computing power will only increase over time.
How to prevent it (5 mitigations)
-
Architecture and Design
When 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 140-2 certification [REF-1192].
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak.
Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
-
Architecture and Design
Ensure 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 generation of the hardware product.
-
Architecture and Design
Carefully 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 Design
Use 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 Design
When 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.
Source: MITRE CWE-327
6 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
High 8.4CVE-2025-51726 Public exploit
CyberGhostVPNSetup.exe (Windows installer) is signed using the weak cryptographic hash algorithm SHA-1, which is vulner…
-
High 7.5CVE-2025-2539 Public exploit
File Away <= 3.9.9.0.1 - Missing Authorization to Unauthenticated Arbitrary File Read
The File Away plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access of data due to a missing capability check on the ajax() function in all versions up to, and including, 3.9.9.0.1. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers, leveraging the use …
-
High 7.5CVE-2024-36823 Public exploit
Weak encryption in Ninja Core
The encrypt() function of Ninja Core v7.0.0 was discovered to use a weak cryptographic algorithm, leading to a possible leakage of sensitive information.
-
High 8.2CVE-2023-3350 Public exploit
Cryptographic Issues on IBERMATICA RPS
A Cryptographic Issue vulnerability has been found on IBERMATICA RPS, affecting version 2019. By firstly downloading the log file, an attacker could retrieve the SQL query sent to the application in plaint text. This log file contains the password hashes code…
-
High 8.1CVE-2023-28244 Public exploit
Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
Windows Kerberos Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability
-
High 7.5CVE-2022-2097 Public exploit
AES OCB fails to encrypt some bytes
AES OCB mode for 32-bit x86 platforms using the AES-NI assembly optimised implementation will not encrypt the entirety of the data under some circumstances. This could reveal sixteen bytes of data that was preexisting in the memory that wasn't written. In the…