CWE-327: Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm

Description:
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.

Extended Description:
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 ca

Affected languages: Not Language-Specific, Verilog, VHDL
Affected technologies: Not Technology-Specific, ICS/OT
Parent weaknesses: CWE-693

Consequences:
  - Confidentiality: Read Application Data
  - Integrity: Modify Application Data
  - Accountability: Hide Activities

Detection methods:
  - Automated Analysis: Automated methods may be useful for recognizing commonly-used libraries or features that have become obsolete.
  - Manual Analysis: 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 m
  - Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: 
                   
                      Cost effective for partial coverage: 
                         
             
  - Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: 
                   
                      Cost effective for partial coverage: 
                         
             

Mitigations:
  - [Architecture and Design] 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,
  - [Architecture and Design] 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 Prop
  - [Architecture and Design] 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.
  - [Architecture and Design] 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 implem

Demonstrative examples:
These code examples use the Data Encryption Standard (DES).
Once considered a strong algorithm, DES now regarded as insufficient for many applications. It has been replaced by Advanced Encryption Standard (AES).
EVP_des_ecb();
Cipher des=Cipher.getInstance("DES..."); des.initEncrypt(key2);

Suppose a chip manufacturer decides to implement a hashing scheme for verifying integrity property of certain bitstream, and it chooses to implement a SHA1 hardware accelerator for to implement the scheme.
However, SHA1 was theoretically broken in 2005 and practically broken in 2017 at a cost of $110K. This means an attacker with access to cloud-rented computing power will now be able to provide a malicious bitstream with the same hash value, thereby defeating the purpose for which the hash was used.
The manufacturer chooses a SHA1 hardware accelerator for to implement the scheme because it already has a working SHA1 Intellectual Property (IP) that the manufacturer had created and used earlier, so this reuse of IP saves design cost.
The manufacturer could have chosen a cryptographic soluti

Real-world examples:
  - CVE-2022-30273: SCADA-based protocol supports a legacy encryption mode that uses Tiny Encryption Algorithm (TEA) in ECB mode, which leaks patterns in messages and cannot protect integrity
  - CVE-2022-30320: Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) uses a protocol with a cryptographically insecure hashing algorithm for passwords.
  - CVE-2008-3775: Product uses "ROT-25" to obfuscate the password in the registry.
  - CVE-2007-4150: product only uses "XOR" to obfuscate sensitive data
  - CVE-2007-5460: product only uses "XOR" and a fixed key to obfuscate sensitive data