Browse cwe weaknesses with official CWE context and Glexia analysis.
Search And Filters
Showing 50 of 969 CWE records · Page 18 of 20.
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
The device uses an algorithm that is predictable and generates a pseudo-random number.
The device includes chicken bits or undocumented features that can create entry points for unauthorized actors.
Access to security-sensitive information stored in fuses is not limited during debug.
The product uses physical debug or test interfaces with support for multiple access levels, but it assigns the wrong debug access level to an internal asset, providing unintended access to the asset from untrusted debug agents.
Faulty finite state machines (FSMs) in the hardware logic allow an attacker to put the system in an undefined state, to cause a denial of service (DoS) or gain privileges on the victim's system.
The product does not implement or incorrectly implements wear leveling operations in limited-write non-volatile memories.
The device does not contain or contains incorrectly implemented circuitry or sensors to detect and mitigate voltage and clock glitches and protect sensitive information or software contained on the device.
The security-sensitive hardware module contains semiconductor defects.
The product provides an application for administrators to manage parts of the underlying operating system, but the application does not accurately identify all of the relevant entities or resources that exist in the OS; that is, the application's model of the OS's state is inconsistent with the OS's actual state.
The product has or supports multiple distributed components or sub-systems that are each required to keep their own local copy of shared data - such as state or cache - but the product does not ensure that all local copies remain consistent with each other.
The product's architecture mirrors regions without ensuring that their contents always stay in sync.
The CPU is not configured to provide hardware support for exclusivity of write and execute operations on memory. This allows an attacker to execute data from all of memory.
The logic level used to set a system to a secure state relies on a fuse being unblown.
The product's comparison logic is performed over a series of steps rather than across the entire string in one operation. If there is a comparison logic failure on one of these steps, the operation may be vulnerable to a timing attack that can result in the interception of the process for nefarious purposes.
A device's real time power consumption may be monitored during security token evaluation and the information gleaned may be used to determine the value of the reference token.
The product provides software-controllable device functionality for capabilities such as power and clock management, but it does not properly limit functionality that can lead to modification of hardware memory or register bits, or the ability to observe physical side channels.
Aliased or mirrored memory regions in hardware designs may have inconsistent read/write permissions enforced by the hardware. A possible result is that an untrusted agent is blocked from accessing a memory region but is not blocked from accessing the corresponding aliased memory region.
The hardware does not fully clear security-sensitive values, such as keys and intermediate values in cryptographic operations, when debug mode is entered.
The System-On-A-Chip (SoC) implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. However, the Security Tokens are improperly protected.
The product allows address regions to overlap, which can result in the bypassing of intended memory protection.
The hardware logic does not effectively handle when single-event upsets (SEUs) occur.
The product uses memory-mapped I/O registers that act as an interface to hardware functionality from software, but there is improper access control to those registers.
The product is designed with access restricted to certain information, but it does not sufficiently protect against an unauthorized actor with physical access to these areas.
The hardware logic for error handling and security checks can incorrectly forward data before the security check is complete.
The product invokes code that is believed to be reentrant, but the code performs a call that unintentionally produces a nested invocation of the non-reentrant code.
The product does not properly provide a capability for the product administrator to remove sensitive data at the time the product is decommissioned. A scrubbing capability could be missing, insufficient, or incorrect.
The product uses an obsolete encoding mechanism to implement access controls.
The product's hardware-enforced access control for a particular resource improperly accounts for privilege discrepancies between control and write policies.
The product released to market is released in pre-production or manufacturing configuration.
The product implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. However, the Security Tokens generated in the system are incorrect.
Security-critical logic is not set to a known value on reset.
The product performs a power or debug state transition, but it does not clear sensitive information that should no longer be accessible due to changes to information access restrictions.
The credentials necessary for unlocking a device are shared across multiple parties and may expose sensitive information.
The product conducts a secure-boot process that transfers bootloader code from Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) into Volatile Memory (VM), but it does not have sufficient access control or other protections for the Volatile Memory.
The SameSite attribute for sensitive cookies is not set, or an insecure value is used.
Signals between a hardware IP and the parent system design are incorrectly connected causing security risks.
The product does not provide its users with the ability to update or patch its firmware to address any vulnerabilities or weaknesses that may be present.
Information stored in hardware may be recovered by an attacker with the capability to capture and analyze images of the integrated circuit using techniques such as scanning electron microscopy.
Performing cryptographic operations without ensuring that the supporting inputs are ready to supply valid data may compromise the cryptographic result.
A product's hardware-based access control check occurs after the asset has been accessed.
Specific combinations of processor instructions lead to undesirable behavior such as locking the processor until a hard reset performed.
Immutable data, such as a first-stage bootloader, device identifiers, and "write-once" configuration settings are stored in writable memory that can be re-programmed or updated in the field.
The register contents used for attestation or measurement reporting data to verify boot flow are modifiable by an adversary.
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.
The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.
