CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
low-riskThe product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Common Consequences
Detection Methods
Automated methods may be useful for recognizing commonly-used libraries or features that have become obsolete.
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.
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary / Bytecode simple extractor - strings, ELF readers, etc.
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Man-in-the-middle attack tool Cost effective for partial coverage: Framework-based Fuzzer Automated Monitored Execution Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) Cost effective for partial coverage: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Configuration Checker
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Real-World Examples (10)
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS | KEV |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-34039 | 9.8 | 93.2% | — |
| CVE-2017-17382 | 5.9 | 78.3% | — |
| CVE-2017-17428 | 5.9 | 77.0% | — |
| CVE-2022-3365 | 9.8 | 52.6% | — |
| CVE-2014-8687 | 9.8 | 49.9% | — |
| CVE-2016-6602 | 9.8 | 47.8% | — |
| CVE-2018-0737 | 5.9 | 38.1% | — |
| CVE-2015-9235 | 9.8 | 32.5% | — |
| CVE-2025-2539 | 7.5 | 20.8% | — |
| CVE-2024-36823 | 7.5 | 11.8% | — |