The software does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by that algorithm.
Cryptographic implementations should follow the algorithms that define them exactly, otherwise encryption can be weaker than expected.
The table(s) below shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the software life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.
REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Developers sometimes omit certain "expensive" (resource-intensive) steps in order to improve performance, especially in devices with limited memory or CPU cycles. This could be done under a mistaken impression that the step is unnecessary for preserving security. Alternately, the developer might adopt a threat model that is inconsistent with that of its consumers by accepting a risk for which the remaining protection seems "good enough."
Architecture and Design
This issue can be introduced when the requirements for the algorithm are not clearly stated.
The listings below show possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.
The table below specifies different individual consequences associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
Technical Impact: Bypass Protection Mechanism
If the cryptographic algorithm is used for authentication and authorization, then an attacker could gain unauthorized access to the system.
Technical Impact: Read Application Data; Modify Application Data
Sensitive data may be compromised by the use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm.
Technical Impact: Hide Activities
If the cryptographic algorithm is used to ensure the identity of the source of the data (such as digital signatures), then a broken algorithm will compromise this scheme and the source of the data cannot be proven.
Missing challenge-response step allows authentication bypass using public key.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.