CWE-327
Allowed-with-ReviewUse of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
Abstraction: Class · Status: Draft
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
960 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-R374-RXX8-8654
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-06 00:31 – Updated: 2026-05-08 23:13In Paramiko through 4.0.0 before a448945, rsakey.py allows the SHA-1 algorithm.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "paramiko"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "4.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-44405"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-08T23:13:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-06T00:16:04Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "In Paramiko through 4.0.0 before a448945, rsakey.py allows the SHA-1 algorithm.",
"id": "GHSA-r374-rxx8-8654",
"modified": "2026-05-08T23:13:43Z",
"published": "2026-05-06T00:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-44405"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko/commit/a4489456b6f65281e172380cc4826cee5e851dbb"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/paramiko/paramiko"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ostif.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/25-11-2415-REP_paramiko-security-audit_v1.1.pdf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Paramiko rsakey.py allows the SHA-1 algorithm"
}
GHSA-R38H-C57M-FW47
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-07 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-14 00:00A use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm vulnerability [CWE-327] in the Dynamic Tunnel Protocol of FortiWAN before 4.5.9 may allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to decrypt and forge protocol communication messages.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-32593"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-04-06T10:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A use of a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm vulnerability [CWE-327] in the Dynamic Tunnel Protocol of FortiWAN before 4.5.9 may allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to decrypt and forge protocol communication messages.",
"id": "GHSA-r38h-c57m-fw47",
"modified": "2022-04-14T00:00:30Z",
"published": "2022-04-07T00:00:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-32593"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://fortiguard.com/psirt/FG-IR-21-070"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R4RH-RGR8-5WJR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:54 – Updated: 2022-05-24 16:54An exploitable information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Weave PASE pairing functionality of the Nest Cam IQ Indoor, version 4620002. A set of specially crafted weave packets can brute force a pairing code, resulting in greater Weave access and potentially full device control. An attacker can send specially crafted packets to trigger this vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-5035"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-08-20T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "An exploitable information disclosure vulnerability exists in the Weave PASE pairing functionality of the Nest Cam IQ Indoor, version 4620002. A set of specially crafted weave packets can brute force a pairing code, resulting in greater Weave access and potentially full device control. An attacker can send specially crafted packets to trigger this vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-r4rh-rgr8-5wjr",
"modified": "2022-05-24T16:54:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:54:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-5035"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://talosintelligence.com/vulnerability_reports/TALOS-2019-0798"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R4RR-W9H2-GWW5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-28 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:43IBM Counter Fraud Management for Safer Payments 6.1.0.00 through 6.1.1.02, 6.2.0.00 through 6.2.2.02, 6.3.0.00 through 6.3.1.02, 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.01, and 6.5.0.00 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 249192.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-27557"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-28T02:15:08Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Counter Fraud Management for Safer Payments 6.1.0.00 through 6.1.1.02, 6.2.0.00 through 6.2.2.02, 6.3.0.00 through 6.3.1.02, 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.01, and 6.5.0.00 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 249192.",
"id": "GHSA-r4rr-w9h2-gww5",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:43:17Z",
"published": "2023-04-28T03:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27557"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/249192"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6985603"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R4WR-GXJ6-V6VF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:03 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:03IBM Security Guardium 11.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196280.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-20419"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-05-24T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "IBM Security Guardium 11.2 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 196280.",
"id": "GHSA-r4wr-gxj6-v6vf",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:03:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:03:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-20419"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/196280"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6455281"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-R65J-6H5F-4F92
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-01 03:30 – Updated: 2024-04-03 14:52Withdrawn Advisory
This advisory has been withdrawn because it has been found to be disputed. Please see the issue here for more information.
Original Description
JJWT (aka Java JWT) through 0.12.5 ignores certain characters and thus a user might falsely conclude that they have a strong key. The impacted code is the setSigningKey() method within the DefaultJwtParser class and the signWith() method within the DefaultJwtBuilder class.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "io.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-impl"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.12.5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-31033"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-01T16:28:49Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-01T02:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Withdrawn Advisory\n\nThis advisory has been withdrawn because it has been found to be disputed. Please see the issue [here](https://github.com/jwtk/jjwt/issues/930#issuecomment-2032699358) for more information.\n\n## Original Description\n\nJJWT (aka Java JWT) through 0.12.5 ignores certain characters and thus a user might falsely conclude that they have a strong key. The impacted code is the setSigningKey() method within the DefaultJwtParser class and the signWith() method within the DefaultJwtBuilder class.",
"id": "GHSA-r65j-6h5f-4f92",
"modified": "2024-04-03T14:52:58Z",
"published": "2024-04-01T03:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-31033"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jwtk/jjwt/issues/930#issuecomment-2032699358"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/2308652512/JJWT_BUG"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jwtk/jjwt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jwtk/jjwt/blob/26948610fbef81eba867cbaad54b516d1874c70a/impl/src/main/java/io/jsonwebtoken/impl/DefaultJwtParserBuilder.java#L242"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.viralpatel.net/java-create-validate-jwt-token"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Withdrawn: JJWT improperly generates signing keys",
"withdrawn": "2024-04-03T14:52:58Z"
}
GHSA-R74C-43RG-H54F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-10 21:30 – Updated: 2025-09-10 21:30IBM Security Verify Information Queue 10.0.5, 10.0.6, 10.0.7, and 10.0.8
uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-45671"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-10T20:15:32Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Security Verify Information Queue 10.0.5, 10.0.6, 10.0.7, and 10.0.8 \n\nuses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-r74c-43rg-h54f",
"modified": "2025-09-10T21:30:19Z",
"published": "2025-09-10T21:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-45671"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7244514"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R78F-4Q2Q-HVV4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-16 21:13 – Updated: 2024-01-19 19:28Summary
The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.
Details
The revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.
The flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the Hyperledger Ursa repository to the Ursa Rust Crate, and are fixed in all versions published from the Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures repository to the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate.
To exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android "SafetyNet Attestation API") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) "help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device."
The problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures.
Impact
The potential impact is as follows:
- A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being "not revoked" when in fact, the holder's credential has been revoked.
Mitigation
Upgrade libraries/applications using the Ursa Rust Crate to any version of the AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.
A verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "ursa"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "0.3.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c 0.1.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "crates.io",
"name": "anoncreds-clsignatures"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21670"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-16T21:13:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-16T22:15:45Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThe revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementations has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.\n\n### Details\n\nThe revocation schema that is part of the Ursa CL-Signatures implementation has a flaw that could impact the privacy guarantees defined by the AnonCreds verifiable credential model, allowing a malicious holder of a revoked credential to generate a valid Non-Revocation Proof for that credential as part of an AnonCreds presentation.\n\nThe flaw exists in all CL-Signature versions published from the [Hyperledger Ursa] repository to the [Ursa Rust Crate], and are fixed in all versions published from the [Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures] repository to the [AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate].\n\nTo exploit the flaw, a holder must update their wallet (agent) software, replacing the Hyperledger Ursa or AnonCreds CL-Signatures library that generates the proof of non-revocation. This may involve, for example, altering an iOS or Android application published in the respective app stores. A mitigation for this flaw is to use the application attestation capabilities (such as the Android \"[SafetyNet Attestation API]\") offered by the app store vendors to (for example) \"help determine whether your servers are interacting with your genuine app running on a genuine Android device.\"\n\nThe problem is created in the generation of a revocation registry, prior to issuing any credentials. As such, to eliminate the impact of the flaw, the issued credentials must be re-issued based on a correct revocation registry, generated from a correct implementation, such as [Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures].\n\n[Hyperledger Ursa]: https://github.com/hyperledger-archives/ursa\n[Ursa Rust Crate]: https://crates.io/crates/ursa\n[Hyperledger AnonCreds CL-Signatures]: https://github.com/hyperledger/anoncreds-clsignatures-rs\n[AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate]: https://crates.io/crates/anoncreds-clsignatures\n[SafetyNet Attestation API]: https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/safetynet/attestation\n### Impact\nThe potential impact is as follows:\n\n- A verifier may verify a credential from a holder as being \"not revoked\" when in fact, the holder\u0027s credential has been revoked.\n\n### Mitigation\n\nUpgrade libraries/applications using the [Ursa Rust Crate] to any version of the [AnonCreds CL-Signatures Rust Crate]. If your application has issued revocable credentials, once the Issuer library has been upgraded, new revocation registries must be created, and credentials issued from revocation registries created with the the flawed software must be revoked and reissued.\n\nA verifier can detect if a holder presents a flawed revocable credential.",
"id": "GHSA-r78f-4q2q-hvv4",
"modified": "2024-01-19T19:28:20Z",
"published": "2024-01-16T21:13:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/hyperledger-archives/ursa/security/advisories/GHSA-r78f-4q2q-hvv4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21670"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/hyperledger-archives/ursa"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CL-Signatures Revocation Scheme in Ursa has flaws that allow a holder to demonstrate non-revocation of a revoked credential"
}
GHSA-R7J8-523F-FPXP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-10 15:30 – Updated: 2024-02-10 15:30IBM Semeru Runtime 8.0.302.0 through 8.0.392.0, 11.0.12.0 through 11.0.21.0, 17.0.1.0 - 17.0.9.0, and 21.0.1.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 281222.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-22361"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-10T15:15:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Semeru Runtime 8.0.302.0 through 8.0.392.0, 11.0.12.0 through 11.0.21.0, 17.0.1.0 - 17.0.9.0, and 21.0.1.0 uses weaker than expected cryptographic algorithms that could allow an attacker to decrypt highly sensitive information. IBM X-Force ID: 281222.",
"id": "GHSA-r7j8-523f-fpxp",
"modified": "2024-02-10T15:30:23Z",
"published": "2024-02-10T15:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-22361"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/281222"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7116431"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-R845-4FQ9-3XHV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:57 – Updated: 2022-05-24 16:57Boot image not getting verified by AVB in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Mobile, Snapdragon Wearables in MDM9607, MSM8909W, Qualcomm 215, SD 210/SD 212/SD 205, SD 425, SD 427, SD 430, SD 435, SD 439 / SD 429, SD 450, SD 625, SD 632, SD 820, SD 820A, SDM439
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10492"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-327"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-09-30T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Boot image not getting verified by AVB in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Mobile, Snapdragon Wearables in MDM9607, MSM8909W, Qualcomm 215, SD 210/SD 212/SD 205, SD 425, SD 427, SD 430, SD 435, SD 439 / SD 429, SD 450, SD 625, SD 632, SD 820, SD 820A, SDM439",
"id": "GHSA-r845-4fq9-3xhv",
"modified": "2022-05-24T16:57:01Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:57:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10492"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.codeaurora.org/security-bulletin/2019/08/05/august-2019-code-aurora-security-bulletin"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation MIT-24
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
- For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-2 certification [REF-1192].
- Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. Reverse engineering techniques are mature. If the algorithm can be compromised if attackers find out how it works, then it is especially weak.
- Periodically ensure that the cryptography has not become obsolete. Some older algorithms, once thought to require a billion years of computing time, can now be broken in days or hours. This includes MD4, MD5, SHA1, DES, and other algorithms that were once regarded as strong. [REF-267]
Mitigation MIT-52
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.
Mitigation
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.
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Industry-standard implementations will save development time and may be more likely to avoid errors that can occur during implementation of cryptographic algorithms. Consider the ESAPI Encryption feature.
Mitigation MIT-25
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.
CAPEC-20: Encryption Brute Forcing
An attacker, armed with the cipher text and the encryption algorithm used, performs an exhaustive (brute force) search on the key space to determine the key that decrypts the cipher text to obtain the plaintext.
CAPEC-459: Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate
An adversary exploits a weakness resulting from using a hashing algorithm with weak collision resistance to generate certificate signing requests (CSR) that contain collision blocks in their "to be signed" parts. The adversary submits one CSR to be signed by a trusted certificate authority then uses the signed blob to make a second certificate appear signed by said certificate authority. Due to the hash collision, both certificates, though different, hash to the same value and so the signed blob works just as well in the second certificate. The net effect is that the adversary's second X.509 certificate, which the Certification Authority has never seen, is now signed and validated by that Certification Authority.
CAPEC-473: Signature Spoof
An attacker generates a message or datablock that causes the recipient to believe that the message or datablock was generated and cryptographically signed by an authoritative or reputable source, misleading a victim or victim operating system into performing malicious actions.
CAPEC-475: Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation
An adversary exploits a cryptographic weakness in the signature verification algorithm implementation to generate a valid signature without knowing the key.
CAPEC-608: Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption
The use of cryptanalytic techniques to derive cryptographic keys or otherwise effectively defeat cellular encryption to reveal traffic content. Some cellular encryption algorithms such as A5/1 and A5/2 (specified for GSM use) are known to be vulnerable to such attacks and commercial tools are available to execute these attacks and decrypt mobile phone conversations in real-time. Newer encryption algorithms in use by UMTS and LTE are stronger and currently believed to be less vulnerable to these types of attacks. Note, however, that an attacker with a Cellular Rogue Base Station can force the use of weak cellular encryption even by newer mobile devices.
CAPEC-614: Rooting SIM Cards
SIM cards are the de facto trust anchor of mobile devices worldwide. The cards protect the mobile identity of subscribers, associate devices with phone numbers, and increasingly store payment credentials, for example in NFC-enabled phones with mobile wallets. This attack leverages over-the-air (OTA) updates deployed via cryptographically-secured SMS messages to deliver executable code to the SIM. By cracking the DES key, an attacker can send properly signed binary SMS messages to a device, which are treated as Java applets and are executed on the SIM. These applets are allowed to send SMS, change voicemail numbers, and query the phone location, among many other predefined functions. These capabilities alone provide plenty of potential for abuse.
CAPEC-97: Cryptanalysis
Cryptanalysis is a process of finding weaknesses in cryptographic algorithms and using these weaknesses to decipher the ciphertext without knowing the secret key (instance deduction). Sometimes the weakness is not in the cryptographic algorithm itself, but rather in how it is applied that makes cryptanalysis successful. An attacker may have other goals as well, such as: Total Break (finding the secret key), Global Deduction (finding a functionally equivalent algorithm for encryption and decryption that does not require knowledge of the secret key), Information Deduction (gaining some information about plaintexts or ciphertexts that was not previously known) and Distinguishing Algorithm (the attacker has the ability to distinguish the output of the encryption (ciphertext) from a random permutation of bits).