CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm | Glexia

Causes

• These code examples use the Data Encryption Standard (DES). Once considered a strong algorithm, DES now regarded as insufficient for many applications. It has been replaced by Advanced Encryption Standard (AES).
• 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. However, SHA1 was theoretically broken in 2005 and practically broken in 2017 at a cost of $110K. This means an attacker with access to cloud-rented computing power will now be able to provide a malicious bitstream with the same hash value, thereby defeating the purpose for which the hash was used.,This issue could have been avoided with better design.
• In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. Multiple OT products used weak cryptography.

Remediation

• Architecture and Design:
• 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.
• 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.

Detection

• Automated Analysis: Automated methods may be useful for recognizing commonly-used libraries or features that have become obsolete.
• Manual Analysis: This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.
• Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode:
• Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode:
• Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation:
• Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation:
• Manual Static Analysis - Source Code:
• Automated Static Analysis - Source Code:

Related CWEs

• CWE-1240: Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation
• CWE-208: Observable Timing Discrepancy
• CWE-301: Reflection Attack in an Authentication Protocol
• CWE-311: Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data
• CWE-693: Protection Mechanism Failure
• CWE-328: Use of Weak Hash
• CWE-780: Use of RSA Algorithm without OAEP
• CWE-916: Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort

Related CVEs

Related CVE mappings appear after CVE records are cross-indexed.

ATT&CK Relevance

ATT&CK relevance is shown only when reviewed or responsibly inferred.