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-8457-MXPV-X45G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-03 15:32 – Updated: 2025-02-03 15:32Dell Key Trust Platform, v3.0.6 and prior, contains Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation vulnerability. A local privileged attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to privileged information disclosure.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-37137"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1240",
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-28T02:15:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Dell Key Trust Platform, v3.0.6 and prior, contains Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation vulnerability. A local privileged attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to privileged information disclosure.",
"id": "GHSA-8457-mxpv-x45g",
"modified": "2025-02-03T15:32:00Z",
"published": "2025-02-03T15:32:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-37137"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000226476/dsa-2024-294-security-update-for-dell-cloudlink-vulnerability"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-84WG-RGP8-2HG4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-08 00:40 – Updated: 2022-09-21 19:38Apache James prior to release 3.6.1 is vulnerable to a buffering attack relying on the use of the STARTTLS command. This can result in Man-in -the-middle command injection attacks, leading potentially to leakage of sensible information.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.apache.james:james-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.6.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-38542"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327",
"CWE-77"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-01-07T18:35:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-04T09:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Apache James prior to release 3.6.1 is vulnerable to a buffering attack relying on the use of the STARTTLS command. This can result in Man-in -the-middle command injection attacks, leading potentially to leakage of sensible information.",
"id": "GHSA-84wg-rgp8-2hg4",
"modified": "2022-09-21T19:38:47Z",
"published": "2022-01-08T00:40:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-38542"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/01/04/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/01/04/1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/09/20/1"
}
],
"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": "Command Injection in Apache James"
}
GHSA-863P-H29X-84J2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:55 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:51The ASG/ProxySG FTP proxy WebFTP mode allows intercepting FTP connections where a user accesses an FTP server via a ftp:// URL in a web browser. An information disclosure vulnerability in the WebFTP mode allows a malicious user to obtain plaintext authentication credentials for a remote FTP server from the ASG/ProxySG's web listing of the FTP server. Affected versions: ASG 6.6 and 6.7 prior to 6.7.4.2; ProxySG 6.5 prior to 6.5.10.15, 6.6, and 6.7 prior to 6.7.4.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-18371"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-30T09:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The ASG/ProxySG FTP proxy WebFTP mode allows intercepting FTP connections where a user accesses an FTP server via a ftp:// URL in a web browser. An information disclosure vulnerability in the WebFTP mode allows a malicious user to obtain plaintext authentication credentials for a remote FTP server from the ASG/ProxySG\u0027s web listing of the FTP server. Affected versions: ASG 6.6 and 6.7 prior to 6.7.4.2; ProxySG 6.5 prior to 6.5.10.15, 6.6, and 6.7 prior to 6.7.4.2.",
"id": "GHSA-863p-h29x-84j2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T01:51:36Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:55:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-18371"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.symantec.com/us/en/article.SYMSA1472.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8743-M96C-XPVR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-12 21:30 – Updated: 2024-02-12 21:30IBM CICS TX Standard and Advanced 11.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 229440.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-34309"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-12T19:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM CICS TX Standard and Advanced 11.1 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 229440.",
"id": "GHSA-8743-m96c-xpvr",
"modified": "2024-02-12T21:30:54Z",
"published": "2024-02-12T21:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-34309"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/229440"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6832814"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6832918"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-874W-47F4-39Q6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:13 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:13VISAM VBASE Editor version 11.5.0.2 and VBASE Web-Remote Module allow weak hashing algorithm and insecure permissions which may allow a local attacker to bypass the password-protected mechanism through brute-force attacks, cracking techniques, or overwriting the password hash.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-10601"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-03T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "VISAM VBASE Editor version 11.5.0.2 and VBASE Web-Remote Module allow weak hashing algorithm and insecure permissions which may allow a local attacker to bypass the password-protected mechanism through brute-force attacks, cracking techniques, or overwriting the password hash.",
"id": "GHSA-874w-47f4-39q6",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:13:21Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:13:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-10601"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-20-084-01"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-87MP-XC4X-X8RH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-15 17:47 – Updated: 2024-05-15 17:47The encryption and decryption process were vulnerable against the Bleichenbacher's attack, which is a padding oracle vulnerability disclosed in the 98'. The issue was about the wrong padding utilized, which allowed to retrieve the encrypted content. The OPENSSL_PKCS1_PADDING version, aka PKCS v1.5 was vulnerable (is the one set by default when using openssl_* methods), while the PKCS v2.0 isn't anymore (it's also called OAEP).
A fix for this vulnerability was merged at https://github.com/Cosmicist/AsymmetriCrypt/pull/5/commits/a0318cfc5022f2a7715322dba3ff91d475ace7c6.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "asymmetricrypt/asymmetricrypt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.3.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-05-15T17:47:31Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The encryption and decryption process were vulnerable against the Bleichenbacher\u0027s attack, which is a padding oracle vulnerability disclosed in the 98\u0027.\nThe issue was about the wrong padding utilized, which allowed to retrieve the encrypted content.\nThe OPENSSL_PKCS1_PADDING version, aka PKCS v1.5 was vulnerable (is the one set by default when using openssl_* methods), while the PKCS v2.0 isn\u0027t anymore (it\u0027s also called OAEP).\n\nA fix for this vulnerability was merged at https://github.com/Cosmicist/AsymmetriCrypt/pull/5/commits/a0318cfc5022f2a7715322dba3ff91d475ace7c6.",
"id": "GHSA-87mp-xc4x-x8rh",
"modified": "2024-05-15T17:47:31Z",
"published": "2024-05-15T17:47:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Cosmicist/AsymmetriCrypt/issues/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Cosmicist/AsymmetriCrypt/pull/5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Cosmicist/AsymmetriCrypt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/FriendsOfPHP/security-advisories/blob/master/asymmetricrypt/asymmetricrypt/2017-11-20.yaml"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "asymmetricrypt/asymmetricrypt Padding Oracle Vulnerability in RSA Encryption"
}
GHSA-88Q6-JCJG-HVMW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-09 19:39 – Updated: 2026-03-25 20:10Summary
An authentication bypass vulnerability allows any unauthenticated attacker to forge arbitrary JWT tokens by setting "alg": "none" in the token header. The library's verification functions immediately return true for such tokens without performing any cryptographic verification, enabling complete impersonation of any user and privilege escalation.
Details
The vulnerability exists in Sources/JSONWebSignature/JWS+Verify.swift at lines 34-37:
public func verify<Key>(key: Key?) throws -> Bool {
guard SigningAlgorithm.none != protectedHeader.algorithm else {
return true // <-- Vulnerability: returns true without verification
}
When the JWT header contains "alg": "none", the verify() method returns true immediately without: 1. Checking if the signature is empty or present 2. Validating the token against any key 3. Requiring explicit opt-in from the caller
The SigningAlgorithm enum in Sources/JSONWebAlgorithms/Signatures/SigningAlgorithm.swift:72 explicitly includes case none = "none" as a valid algorithm.
All verification methods are affected: - JWS.verify(key:) - Instance method - JWS.verify(jwsString:payload:key:) - Static method - JWT.verify(jwtString:senderKey:) - High-level API
PoC
- Create a forged JWT with modified claims: // Forged header with alg:none let header = #"{"alg":"none","typ":"JWT"}"#
// Attacker's payload with escalated privileges let payload = #"{"sub":"user123","admin":true}"#
// Base64URL encode and concatenate with empty signature let forgedToken = base64url(header) + "." + base64url(payload) + "." // Result: eyJhbGciOiJub25lIiwidHlwIjoiSldUIn0.eyJzdWIiOiJ1c2VyMTIzIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWV9.
- Verify the forged token passes verification: let jws = try JWS(jwsString: forgedToken) let isValid = try jws.verify(key: legitimateSecretKey) // Returns TRUE
Impact
This is an authentication bypass vulnerability. Who is impacted: Any application using jose-swift for JWT verification is vulnerable. An attacker can:
- Forge identity: Create tokens claiming to be any user
- Escalate privileges: Add admin/superuser claims to gain unauthorized access
- Bypass authentication entirely: Access protected resources without valid credentials
- Modify any claim: Change expiration, audience, issuer, or any custom claims
The attack requires no knowledge of the signing key and works against all signature algorithms (HS256, RS256, ES256, etc.) since the attacker simply bypasses signature verification entirely.
Credits
Reported by Louis Nyffenegger - https://pentesterlab.com/
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 6.0.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "SwiftURL",
"name": "github.com/beatt83/jose-swift"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "6.0.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-01-09T19:39:30Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nAn authentication bypass vulnerability allows any unauthenticated attacker to forge arbitrary JWT tokens by setting \"alg\": \"none\" in the token header. The library\u0027s verification functions immediately return `true` for such tokens without performing any cryptographic verification, enabling complete impersonation of any user and privilege escalation.\n\n### Details\n The vulnerability exists in Sources/JSONWebSignature/JWS+Verify.swift at lines 34-37:\n\n```\n public func verify\u003cKey\u003e(key: Key?) throws -\u003e Bool {\n guard SigningAlgorithm.none != protectedHeader.algorithm else {\n return true // \u003c-- Vulnerability: returns true without verification\n }\n```\n When the JWT header contains \"alg\": \"none\", the verify() method returns true immediately without:\n 1. Checking if the signature is empty or present\n 2. Validating the token against any key\n 3. Requiring explicit opt-in from the caller\n \n\n The SigningAlgorithm enum in Sources/JSONWebAlgorithms/Signatures/SigningAlgorithm.swift:72 explicitly includes case none = \"none\" as a valid algorithm.\n\n All verification methods are affected:\n - JWS.verify(key:) - Instance method\n - JWS.verify(jwsString:payload:key:) - Static method\n - JWT.verify(jwtString:senderKey:) - High-level API\n\n### PoC\n\n 1. Create a forged JWT with modified claims:\n // Forged header with alg:none\n let header = #\"{\"alg\":\"none\",\"typ\":\"JWT\"}\"#\n\n // Attacker\u0027s payload with escalated privileges\n let payload = #\"{\"sub\":\"user123\",\"admin\":true}\"#\n\n // Base64URL encode and concatenate with empty signature\n let forgedToken = base64url(header) + \".\" + base64url(payload) + \".\"\n // Result: eyJhbGciOiJub25lIiwidHlwIjoiSldUIn0.eyJzdWIiOiJ1c2VyMTIzIiwiYWRtaW4iOnRydWV9.\n\n 2. Verify the forged token passes verification:\n let jws = try JWS(jwsString: forgedToken)\n let isValid = try jws.verify(key: legitimateSecretKey) // Returns TRUE\n\n\n### Impact\n\n This is an authentication bypass vulnerability. Who is impacted: Any application using jose-swift for JWT verification is vulnerable. An attacker can:\n\n - Forge identity: Create tokens claiming to be any user\n - Escalate privileges: Add admin/superuser claims to gain unauthorized access\n - Bypass authentication entirely: Access protected resources without valid credentials\n - Modify any claim: Change expiration, audience, issuer, or any custom claims\n\n The attack requires no knowledge of the signing key and works against all signature algorithms (HS256, RS256, ES256, etc.) since the attacker simply bypasses signature verification entirely.\n\n### Credits\nReported by Louis Nyffenegger - https://pentesterlab.com/",
"id": "GHSA-88q6-jcjg-hvmw",
"modified": "2026-03-25T20:10:46Z",
"published": "2026-01-09T19:39:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beatt83/jose-swift/security/advisories/GHSA-88q6-jcjg-hvmw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beatt83/jose-swift/pull/62"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beatt83/jose-swift/commit/13e5ae6f23ef1487b0dad72540eff414272bd7ca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/beatt83/jose-swift"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/beatt83/jose-swift/releases/tag/6.0.2"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "jose-swift has JWT Signature Verification Bypass via None Algorithm"
}
GHSA-88R5-MXJG-5M25
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 04:00 – Updated: 2022-05-14 04:00Elemental Path's CogniToys Dino smart toys through firmware version 0.0.794 share a fixed small pool of hardcoded keys, allowing a remote attacker to use a different Dino device to decrypt VoIP traffic between a child's Dino and remote server.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-8866"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-12-11T21:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Elemental Path\u0027s CogniToys Dino smart toys through firmware version 0.0.794 share a fixed small pool of hardcoded keys, allowing a remote attacker to use a different Dino device to decrypt VoIP traffic between a child\u0027s Dino and remote server.",
"id": "GHSA-88r5-mxjg-5m25",
"modified": "2022-05-14T04:00:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T04:00:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8866"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3139947"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8934-73X5-7J23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:14 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:14wolfSSL 4.3.0 has mulmod code in wc_ecc_mulmod_ex in ecc.c that does not properly resist timing side-channel attacks.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-11713"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-203",
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-04-12T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "wolfSSL 4.3.0 has mulmod code in wc_ecc_mulmod_ex in ecc.c that does not properly resist timing side-channel attacks.",
"id": "GHSA-8934-73x5-7j23",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:14:02Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:14:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-11713"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/2894"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/pietroborrello/7c5be2d1dc15349c4ffc8671f0aad04f"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-89V6-G7J9-XJ43
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-20 00:00 – Updated: 2022-09-23 00:00WD Discovery software executable files were signed with an unsafe SHA-1 hashing algorithm. An attacker could use this weakness to create forged certificate signatures due to the use of a hashing algorithm that is not collision-free. This could thereby impact the confidentiality of user content. This issue affects: Western Digital WD Discovery WD Discovery Desktop App versions prior to 4.4.396 on Mac; WD Discovery Desktop App versions prior to 4.4.396 on Windows.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-29835"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-326",
"CWE-327",
"CWE-328"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-19T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "WD Discovery software executable files were signed with an unsafe SHA-1 hashing algorithm. An attacker could use this weakness to create forged certificate signatures due to the use of a hashing algorithm that is not collision-free. This could thereby impact the confidentiality of user content. This issue affects: Western Digital WD Discovery WD Discovery Desktop App versions prior to 4.4.396 on Mac; WD Discovery Desktop App versions prior to 4.4.396 on Windows.",
"id": "GHSA-89v6-g7j9-xj43",
"modified": "2022-09-23T00:00:42Z",
"published": "2022-09-20T00:00:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29835"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.westerndigital.com/support/product-security/wdc-22014-wd-discovery-desktop-app-version-4-4-396"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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).