LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CWE Reference

CWE-521: Weak Password Requirements | Glexia

CWE-521 (Weak Password Requirements) weakness overview with consequences, detection methods, mitigations, related CVEs and MITRE ATT&CK context.

Release 4.20weaknessDraft

Glexia's Take · Automated analysis

CWE-521: Weak Password Requirements

Weak Password Requirements represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Executive Impact

  • Access Control: Gain Privileges or Assume Identity: An attacker could easily guess user passwords and gain access user accounts.

Developer Pattern

CWE-521 is the kind of defect developers can usually prevent with explicit validation, safer framework defaults, and tests that exercise hostile input or unsafe state transitions.

Automation confidence

high confidence from CWE-521, 4.20.

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Official CWE Definition

CWE-521: Weak Password Requirements

The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.

Type
weakness
Abstraction
Base
Status
Draft
Source
MITRE CWE definition

Developer And Remediation Guidance

How teams prevent and detect this weakness

Causes

  • Missing validation
  • Unsafe defaults
  • Insufficient authorization or memory-safety invariant

Remediation

  • Architecture and Design: A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length Restrictions against password reuse Restrictions against using common passwords Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. Randomly Chosen Secrets Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. See NIST 800-63B [REF-1053] for further information on password requirements.
  • Architecture and Design: Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
  • Implementation: Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
  • Implementation: Previously, "password expiration" was widely advocated as a defense-in-depth approach to minimize the risk of weak passwords, and it has become a common practice. Password expiration requires a password to be changed within a fixed time window (such as every 90 days). However, this approach has significant limitations in the current threat landscape, and its utility has been reduced in light of the adoption of related protection mechanisms (such as password complexity and computational effort), along with the recognition that regular password changes often caused users to generate more predictable passwords. As a result, this is now a Discouraged Common Practice [REF-1488] [REF-1489], especially as the sole factor in protecting passwords. It is still strongly encouraged to force password changes in case of evidence of compromise, but this is not the same as a forced "expiration" on an arbitrary time frame.

Detection

  • Automated Static Analysis: Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Mappings

Related CVEs, CWEs, and ATT&CK context

Related CWEs

Related CVEs

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

Open CWE CVE mapping

ATT&CK Relevance

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