CWE · MITRE source
CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Cryptographic algorithms are the methods by which data is scrambled to prevent observation or influence by unauthorized actors. Insecure cryptography can be exploited to expose sensitive information, modify data in unexpected ways, spoof identities of other users or devices, or other impacts. It is very difficult to produce a secure algorithm, and even high-profile algorithms by accomplished cryptographic experts have been broken. Well-known techniques exist to break or weaken various kinds of cryptography. Accordingly, there are a small number of well-understood and heavily studied algorithms that should be used by most products. Using a non-standard or known-insecure algorithm is dangerous because a determined adversary may be able to break the algorithm and compromise whatever data has been protected. Since the state of cryptography advances so rapidly, it is common for an algorithm to be considered "unsafe" even if it was once thought to be strong. This can happen when new attacks are discovered, or if computing power increases so much that the cryptographic algorithm no longer provides the amount of protection that was originally thought. For a number of reasons, this weakness is even more challenging to manage with hardware deployment of cryptographic algorithms as opposed to software implementation. First, if a flaw is discovered with hardware-implemented cryptography, the flaw cannot be fixed in most cases without a recall of the product, because hardware is not easily replaceable like software. Second, because the hardware product is expected to work for years, the adversary's computing power will only increase over time.
Last updated: 09 May 2026 03:25 UTC
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (9)AI
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
PM-15 | Security and Privacy Groups and Associations | PM | Ongoing education and sharing of recommended practices helps organizations identify and migrate away from broken or risky cryptographic algorithms. |
PM-16 | Threat Awareness Program | PM | Cross-organization threat feeds commonly include advances in cryptanalysis and active exploits against weak or broken algorithms, allowing organizations to deprecate them proactively. |
PM-3 | Information Security and Privacy Resources | PM | Capital planning and funding allow selection and ongoing support of strong cryptographic algorithms rather than weak or broken ones. |
RA-4 | Risk Assessment Update | RA | Risk updates surface newly-broken or risky cryptographic algorithms as threat intelligence and computing advances evolve, enabling timely replacement. |
RA-5 | Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | RA | Scanners flag use of broken or weak cryptographic algorithms via known-vulnerability databases. |
SI-2 | Flaw Remediation | SI | Flaw remediation replaces broken or risky cryptographic algorithms once safer implementations are released by vendors. |
SI-5 | Security Alerts, Advisories, and Directives | SI | Security alerts and directives routinely identify broken or risky cryptographic algorithms and require their replacement within defined time frames. |
AT-5 | Contacts with Security Groups and Associations | AT | Contacts with security groups provide timely information on broken or risky cryptographic algorithms, reducing the likelihood of their selection and use. |
SC-13 | Cryptographic Protection | SC | Enforces approved cryptographic algorithms for each use case, blocking use of broken or risky algorithms. |
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2023-34039 | 7.6 | 9.8 | 0.9317 | 2023-08-29 |
CVE-2017-17382 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 0.7827 | 2017-12-13 |
CVE-2017-17428 | 5.8 | 5.9 | 0.7702 | 2018-03-05 |
CVE-2022-3365 | 5.1 | 9.8 | 0.5260 | 2025-01-28 |
CVE-2014-8687 | 5.0 | 9.8 | 0.4987 | 2017-06-08 |
CVE-2016-6602 | 4.8 | 9.8 | 0.4777 | 2017-01-23 |
CVE-2015-9235 | 4.2 | 9.8 | 0.3748 | 2018-05-29 |
CVE-2018-0737 | 3.5 | 5.9 | 0.3812 | 2018-04-16 |
CVE-2025-2539 | 2.7 | 7.5 | 0.2072 | 2025-03-20 |
CVE-2024-31989 | 2.3 | 9.0 | 0.0909 | 2024-05-21 |
CVE-2024-36823 | 2.2 | 7.5 | 0.1182 | 2024-06-06 |
CVE-2007-6013 | 2.1 | 9.8 | 0.0155 | 2007-11-19 |
CVE-2024-32911 | 2.1 | 9.8 | 0.0190 | 2024-06-13 |
CVE-2015-2808 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.3387 | 2015-04-01 |
CVE-2017-4917 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0008 | 2017-06-07 |
CVE-2017-9466 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0017 | 2017-06-26 |
CVE-2017-9859 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0017 | 2017-08-05 |
CVE-2014-9969 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0007 | 2017-08-18 |
CVE-2012-4449 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0040 | 2017-10-30 |
CVE-2017-17717 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0012 | 2017-12-17 |
CVE-2017-17878 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0017 | 2017-12-27 |
CVE-2019-0187 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0063 | 2019-03-06 |
CVE-2019-5723 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0014 | 2019-03-21 |
CVE-2019-16143 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0020 | 2019-09-09 |
CVE-2019-8237 | 2.0 | 9.8 | 0.0101 | 2019-10-23 |