CWE-327
Allowed-with-ReviewUse of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
960 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-5R5W-H76P-M726
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-06 22:20 – Updated: 2022-01-13 18:32A Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm exists in Max Mazurov Maddy before 0.5.2, which is an unnecessary risk that may result in the exposure of sensitive information.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/foxcpp/maddy"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.5.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-42583"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-06T18:56:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-28T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm exists in Max Mazurov Maddy before 0.5.2, which is an unnecessary risk that may result in the exposure of sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-5r5w-h76p-m726",
"modified": "2022-01-13T18:32:43Z",
"published": "2022-01-06T22:20:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42583"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/foxcpp/maddy"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/foxcpp/maddy/blob/df40dce1284cd0fd0a9e8e7894029553d653d0a5/internal/auth/shadow/verify.go"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/foxcpp/maddy/releases/tag/v0.5.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in Max Mazurov Maddy"
}
GHSA-5RFF-J8G7-M3R3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-23 00:31 – Updated: 2026-04-23 00:31IBM Verify Identity Access Container 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access Container 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 and IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-5926"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-23T00:16:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Verify Identity Access Container 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access Container 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 and IBM Verify Identity Access 11.0 through 11.0.2 and IBM Security Verify Access 10.0 through 10.0.9.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-5rff-j8g7-m3r3",
"modified": "2026-04-23T00:31:20Z",
"published": "2026-04-23T00:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-5926"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7269372"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5V7R-JG9R-VQ44
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2020-09-03 21:19 – Updated: 2021-09-29 20:08Versions of simple-crypto-js prior to 2.3.0 use AES-CBC with PKCS#7 padding, which is vulnerable to padding oracle attacks. This may allow attackers to break the encryption and access sensitive data.
Recommendation
Upgrade to version 2.3.0 or later.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "simple-crypto-js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.3.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-08-31T18:51:22Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Versions of `simple-crypto-js` prior to 2.3.0 use AES-CBC with PKCS#7 padding, which is vulnerable to padding oracle attacks. This may allow attackers to break the encryption and access sensitive data.\n\n\n## Recommendation\n\nUpgrade to version 2.3.0 or later.",
"id": "GHSA-5v7r-jg9r-vq44",
"modified": "2021-09-29T20:08:01Z",
"published": "2020-09-03T21:19:46Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/danang-id/simple-crypto-js/issues/12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/danang-id/simple-crypto-js/pull/17"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/danang-id/simple-crypto-js/commit/416584369de1dad9b21ac3fe85df0b71cf5718b2"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/danang-id/simple-crypto-js"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://robertheaton.com/2013/07/29/padding-oracle-attack"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-SIMPLECRYPTOJS-544027"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Insecure Cryptography Algorithm in simple-crypto-js"
}
GHSA-5WG4-74H6-Q47V
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2020-08-20 14:38 – Updated: 2021-07-29 20:49In bcrypt (npm package) before version 5.0.0, data is truncated wrong when its length is greater than 255 bytes.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "bcrypt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-7689"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-190",
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2020-08-20T14:37:17Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-07-01T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In bcrypt (npm package) before version 5.0.0, data is truncated wrong when its length is greater than 255 bytes.",
"id": "GHSA-5wg4-74h6-q47v",
"modified": "2021-07-29T20:49:30Z",
"published": "2020-08-20T14:38:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-7689"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kelektiv/node.bcrypt.js/issues/776"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kelektiv/node.bcrypt.js/pull/806"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/kelektiv/node.bcrypt.js/pull/807"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://snyk.io/vuln/SNYK-JS-BCRYPT-572911"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Integer Overflow or Wraparound and Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm in bcrypt"
}
GHSA-5XC5-CRM5-W93R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-12-24 00:00 – Updated: 2023-07-21 18:30mySCADA myPRO Versions 8.20.0 and prior stores passwords using MD5, which may allow an attacker to crack the previously retrieved password hashes.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-43989"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327",
"CWE-916"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-12-23T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "mySCADA myPRO Versions 8.20.0 and prior stores passwords using MD5, which may allow an attacker to crack the previously retrieved password hashes.",
"id": "GHSA-5xc5-crm5-w93r",
"modified": "2023-07-21T18:30:32Z",
"published": "2021-12-24T00:00:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-43989"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/ics/advisories/icsa-21-355-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5XJ4-2499-67MW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:53 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:39The Bluetooth BR/EDR specification up to and including version 5.1 permits sufficiently low encryption key length and does not prevent an attacker from influencing the key length negotiation. This allows practical brute-force attacks (aka "KNOB") that can decrypt traffic and inject arbitrary ciphertext without the victim noticing.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-9506"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-14T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Bluetooth BR/EDR specification up to and including version 5.1 permits sufficiently low encryption key length and does not prevent an attacker from influencing the key length negotiation. This allows practical brute-force attacks (aka \"KNOB\") that can decrypt traffic and inject arbitrary ciphertext without the victim noticing.",
"id": "GHSA-5xj4-2499-67mw",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:39:51Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:53:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-9506"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/antonioli"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/918987"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.bluetooth.com/security/statement-key-negotiation-of-bluetooth"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4147-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4118-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://usn.ubuntu.com/4115-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/09/msg00025.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/09/msg00015.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2019/09/msg00014.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:0204"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3517"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3309"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3231"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3220"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3218"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3217"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3187"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3165"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3089"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3076"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:3055"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:2975"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-10/msg00036.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-security-announce/2019-10/msg00037.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Aug/11"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Aug/13"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Aug/14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Aug/15"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/publications/publication12404-abstract.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/huawei-sa-20190828-01-knob-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-627P-VX8V-8V2C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-19 18:30 – Updated: 2025-07-02 15:30Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm, Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort, Use of Weak Hash, Use of a One-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt vulnerability in Beta80 Life 1st allows an Attacker to Bruteforce User Passwords or find a collision to gain access to a target application using BETA80 “Life 1st Identity Manager” as a service for authentication.This issue affects Life 1st: 1.5.2.14234.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-26486"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-19T16:15:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm, Use of Password Hash \nWith Insufficient Computational Effort, Use of Weak Hash, Use of a \nOne-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt vulnerability in Beta80 Life 1st \nallows an \nAttacker to Bruteforce User\nPasswords or find a collision to gain access to a target application using BETA80\n\u201cLife 1st Identity Manager\u201d as a service for authentication.This issue affects Life 1st: 1.5.2.14234.",
"id": "GHSA-627p-vx8v-8v2c",
"modified": "2025-07-02T15:30:33Z",
"published": "2025-03-19T18:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26486"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://euvd.enisa.europa.eu/vulnerability/CVE-2025-26486"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.cvcn.gov.it/cvcn/cve/CVE-2025-26486"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-62GC-6823-JQP8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:45 – Updated: 2023-08-15 15:30A vulnerability in the software cryptography module of the Cisco Adaptive Security Virtual Appliance (ASAv) and Firepower 2100 Series running Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an unexpected reload of the device that results in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to a logic error with how the software cryptography module handles IPsec sessions. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by creating and sending traffic in a high number of IPsec sessions through the targeted device. A successful exploit could cause the device to reload and result in a DoS condition.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1706"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327",
"CWE-404"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-05-03T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the software cryptography module of the Cisco Adaptive Security Virtual Appliance (ASAv) and Firepower 2100 Series running Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause an unexpected reload of the device that results in a denial of service (DoS) condition. The vulnerability is due to a logic error with how the software cryptography module handles IPsec sessions. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by creating and sending traffic in a high number of IPsec sessions through the targeted device. A successful exploit could cause the device to reload and result in a DoS condition.",
"id": "GHSA-62gc-6823-jqp8",
"modified": "2023-08-15T15:30:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:45:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1706"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190501-asa-ipsec-dos"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-638M-M8MH-7GW2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-04 00:00 – Updated: 2022-06-17 00:01The OpenSSL 3.0 implementation of the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite incorrectly uses the AAD data as the MAC key. This makes the MAC key trivially predictable. An attacker could exploit this issue by performing a man-in-the-middle attack to modify data being sent from one endpoint to an OpenSSL 3.0 recipient such that the modified data would still pass the MAC integrity check. Note that data sent from an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint will always be rejected by the recipient and the connection will fail at that point. Many application protocols require data to be sent from the client to the server first. Therefore, in such a case, only an OpenSSL 3.0 server would be impacted when talking to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 client. If both endpoints are OpenSSL 3.0 then the attacker could modify data being sent in both directions. In this case both clients and servers could be affected, regardless of the application protocol. Note that in the absence of an attacker this bug means that an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint communicating with a non-OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint will fail to complete the handshake when using this ciphersuite. The confidentiality of data is not impacted by this issue, i.e. an attacker cannot decrypt data that has been encrypted using this ciphersuite - they can only modify it. In order for this attack to work both endpoints must legitimately negotiate the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite. This ciphersuite is not compiled by default in OpenSSL 3.0, and is not available within the default provider or the default ciphersuite list. This ciphersuite will never be used if TLSv1.3 has been negotiated. In order for an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to use this ciphersuite the following must have occurred: 1) OpenSSL must have been compiled with the (non-default) compile time option enable-weak-ssl-ciphers 2) OpenSSL must have had the legacy provider explicitly loaded (either through application code or via configuration) 3) The ciphersuite must have been explicitly added to the ciphersuite list 4) The libssl security level must have been set to 0 (default is 1) 5) A version of SSL/TLS below TLSv1.3 must have been negotiated 6) Both endpoints must negotiate the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite in preference to any others that both endpoints have in common Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "openssl-src"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "300.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "300.0.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-1434"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-17T00:01:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-03T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The OpenSSL 3.0 implementation of the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite incorrectly uses the AAD data as the MAC key. This makes the MAC key trivially predictable. An attacker could exploit this issue by performing a man-in-the-middle attack to modify data being sent from one endpoint to an OpenSSL 3.0 recipient such that the modified data would still pass the MAC integrity check. Note that data sent from an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint will always be rejected by the recipient and the connection will fail at that point. Many application protocols require data to be sent from the client to the server first. Therefore, in such a case, only an OpenSSL 3.0 server would be impacted when talking to a non-OpenSSL 3.0 client. If both endpoints are OpenSSL 3.0 then the attacker could modify data being sent in both directions. In this case both clients and servers could be affected, regardless of the application protocol. Note that in the absence of an attacker this bug means that an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint communicating with a non-OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint will fail to complete the handshake when using this ciphersuite. The confidentiality of data is not impacted by this issue, i.e. an attacker cannot decrypt data that has been encrypted using this ciphersuite - they can only modify it. In order for this attack to work both endpoints must legitimately negotiate the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite. This ciphersuite is not compiled by default in OpenSSL 3.0, and is not available within the default provider or the default ciphersuite list. This ciphersuite will never be used if TLSv1.3 has been negotiated. In order for an OpenSSL 3.0 endpoint to use this ciphersuite the following must have occurred: 1) OpenSSL must have been compiled with the (non-default) compile time option enable-weak-ssl-ciphers 2) OpenSSL must have had the legacy provider explicitly loaded (either through application code or via configuration) 3) The ciphersuite must have been explicitly added to the ciphersuite list 4) The libssl security level must have been set to 0 (default is 1) 5) A version of SSL/TLS below TLSv1.3 must have been negotiated 6) Both endpoints must negotiate the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite in preference to any others that both endpoints have in common Fixed in OpenSSL 3.0.3 (Affected 3.0.0,3.0.1,3.0.2).",
"id": "GHSA-638m-m8mh-7gw2",
"modified": "2022-06-17T00:01:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-04T00:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-1434"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/github/advisory-database/issues/405"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-953464.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://git.openssl.org/gitweb/?p=openssl.git;a=commitdiff;h=7d56a74a96828985db7354a55227a511615f732b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2022-0026.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20220602-0009"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20220503.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Incorrect MAC key used in the RC4-MD5 ciphersuite"
}
GHSA-65PC-VPGQ-HRGM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:30 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:30DBS3900 TDD LTE V100R003C00, V100R004C10 have a weak encryption algorithm security vulnerability. DBS3900 TDD LTE supports SSL/TLS protocol negotiation using insecure encryption algorithms. If an insecure encryption algorithm is negotiated in the communication, an unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to crack the encrypted data and cause information leakage.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-15326"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-03-23T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "DBS3900 TDD LTE V100R003C00, V100R004C10 have a weak encryption algorithm security vulnerability. DBS3900 TDD LTE supports SSL/TLS protocol negotiation using insecure encryption algorithms. If an insecure encryption algorithm is negotiated in the communication, an unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to crack the encrypted data and cause information leakage.",
"id": "GHSA-65pc-vpgq-hrgm",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:30:40Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-15326"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.huawei.com/en/psirt/security-advisories/2018/huawei-sa-20180321-01-encryption-en"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-24
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- 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]
Mitigation MIT-52
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.
Mitigation
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.
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- 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.
Mitigation MIT-25
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.
CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing
An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
CAPEC-459: Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate
An adversary exploits a weakness resulting from using a hashing algorithm with weak collision resistance to generate certificate signing requests (CSR) that contain collision blocks in their "to be signed" parts. The adversary submits one CSR to be signed by a trusted certificate authority then uses the signed blob to make a second certificate appear signed by said certificate authority. Due to the hash collision, both certificates, though different, hash to the same value and so the signed blob works just as well in the second certificate. The net effect is that the adversary's second X.509 certificate, which the Certification Authority has never seen, is now signed and validated by that Certification Authority.
CAPEC-473: Signature Spoof
An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
CAPEC-475: Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation
An adversary exploits a cryptographic weakness in the signature verification algorithm implementation to generate a valid signature without knowing the key.
CAPEC-608: Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption
The use of cryptanalytic techniques to derive cryptographic keys or otherwise effectively defeat cellular encryption to reveal traffic content. Some cellular encryption algorithms such as A5/1 and A5/2 (specified for GSM use) are known to be vulnerable to such attacks and commercial tools are available to execute these attacks and decrypt mobile phone conversations in real-time. Newer encryption algorithms in use by UMTS and LTE are stronger and currently believed to be less vulnerable to these types of attacks. Note, however, that an attacker with a Cellular Rogue Base Station can force the use of weak cellular encryption even by newer mobile devices.
CAPEC-614: Rooting SIM Cards
SIM cards are the de facto trust anchor of mobile devices worldwide. The cards protect the mobile identity of subscribers, associate devices with phone numbers, and increasingly store payment credentials, for example in NFC-enabled phones with mobile wallets. This attack leverages over-the-air (OTA) updates deployed via cryptographically-secured SMS messages to deliver executable code to the SIM. By cracking the DES key, an attacker can send properly signed binary SMS messages to a device, which are treated as Java applets and are executed on the SIM. These applets are allowed to send SMS, change voicemail numbers, and query the phone location, among many other predefined functions. These capabilities alone provide plenty of potential for abuse.
CAPEC-97: Cryptanalysis
Cryptanalysis is a process of finding weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms and using these weaknesses to decipher the ciphertext without knowing the secret key (instance deduction). Sometimes the weakness is not in the cryptographic algorithm itself, but rather in how it is applied that makes cryptanalysis successful. An attacker may have other goals as well, such as: Total Break (finding the secret key), Global Deduction (finding a functionally equivalent algorithm for encryption and decryption that does not require knowledge of the secret key), Information Deduction (gaining some information about plaintexts or ciphertexts that was not previously known) and Distinguishing Algorithm (the attacker has the ability to distinguish the output of the encryption (ciphertext) from a random permutation of bits).