CWE-522
Insufficiently Protected Credentials
Incomplete
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
00h00 +00:00
2023-10-26
00h00 +00:00
00h00 +00:00
Notifications for a CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Name: Insufficiently Protected Credentials
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
General Informations
Modes Of Introduction
Architecture and Design : COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.Implementation
Applicable Platforms
Language
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)Technologies
Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined)Common Consequences
| Scope | Impact | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| Access Control | Gain Privileges or Assume Identity Note: An attacker could gain access to user accounts and access sensitive data used by the user accounts. |
Observed Examples
| References | Description |
|---|---|
CVE-2022-30018 | A messaging platform serializes all elements of User/Group objects, making private information available to adversaries |
CVE-2022-29959 | Initialization file contains credentials that can be decoded using a "simple string transformation" |
CVE-2022-35411 | Python-based RPC framework enables pickle functionality by default, allowing clients to unpickle untrusted data. |
CVE-2022-29519 | Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) sends sensitive information in plaintext, including passwords and session tokens. |
CVE-2022-30312 | Building Controller uses a protocol that transmits authentication credentials in plaintext. |
CVE-2022-31204 | Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) sends password in plaintext. |
CVE-2022-30275 | Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) uses a driver that relies on a password stored in plaintext. |
CVE-2007-0681 | Web app allows remote attackers to change the passwords of arbitrary users without providing the original password, and possibly perform other unauthorized actions. |
CVE-2000-0944 | Web application password change utility doesn't check the original password. |
CVE-2005-3435 | product authentication succeeds if user-provided MD5 hash matches the hash in its database; this can be subjected to replay attacks. |
CVE-2005-0408 | chain: product generates predictable MD5 hashes using a constant value combined with username, allowing authentication bypass. |
Potential Mitigations
Phases : Architecture and DesignUse an appropriate security mechanism to protect the credentials.
Phases : Architecture and Design
Make appropriate use of cryptography to protect the credentials.
Phases : Implementation
Use industry standards to protect the credentials (e.g. LDAP, keystore, etc.).
Detection Methods
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)Effectiveness : High
Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Justification : This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriateComment : Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit
Related Attack Patterns
| CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|---|
| CAPEC-102 | Session Sidejacking Session sidejacking takes advantage of an unencrypted communication channel between a victim and target system. The attacker sniffs traffic on a network looking for session tokens in unencrypted traffic. Once a session token is captured, the attacker performs malicious actions by using the stolen token with the targeted application to impersonate the victim. This attack is a specific method of session hijacking, which is exploiting a valid session token to gain unauthorized access to a target system or information. Other methods to perform a session hijacking are session fixation, cross-site scripting, or compromising a user or server machine and stealing the session token. |
| CAPEC-474 | Signature Spoofing by Key Theft An attacker obtains an authoritative or reputable signer's private signature key by theft and then uses this key to forge signatures from the original signer to mislead a victim into performing actions that benefit the attacker. |
| CAPEC-50 | Password Recovery Exploitation An attacker may take advantage of the application feature to help users recover their forgotten passwords in order to gain access into the system with the same privileges as the original user. Generally password recovery schemes tend to be weak and insecure. |
| CAPEC-509 | Kerberoasting Through the exploitation of how service accounts leverage Kerberos authentication with Service Principal Names (SPNs), the adversary obtains and subsequently cracks the hashed credentials of a service account target to exploit its privileges. The Kerberos authentication protocol centers around a ticketing system which is used to request/grant access to services and to then access the requested services. As an authenticated user, the adversary may request Active Directory and obtain a service ticket with portions encrypted via RC4 with the private key of the authenticated account. By extracting the local ticket and saving it disk, the adversary can brute force the hashed value to reveal the target account credentials. |
| CAPEC-551 | Modify Existing Service When an operating system starts, it also starts programs called services or daemons. Modifying existing services may break existing services or may enable services that are disabled/not commonly used. |
| CAPEC-555 | Remote Services with Stolen Credentials This pattern of attack involves an adversary that uses stolen credentials to leverage remote services such as RDP, telnet, SSH, and VNC to log into a system. Once access is gained, any number of malicious activities could be performed. |
| CAPEC-560 | Use of Known Domain Credentials An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate credentials (e.g. userID/password) to achieve authentication and to perform authorized actions under the guise of an authenticated user or service. |
| CAPEC-561 | Windows Admin Shares with Stolen Credentials An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Windows administrator credentials (e.g. userID/password) to access Windows Admin Shares on a local machine or within a Windows domain. |
| CAPEC-600 | Credential Stuffing An adversary tries known username/password combinations against different systems, applications, or services to gain additional authenticated access. Credential Stuffing attacks rely upon the fact that many users leverage the same username/password combination for multiple systems, applications, and services. |
| CAPEC-644 | Use of Captured Hashes (Pass The Hash) An adversary obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Windows domain credential hash values to access systems within the domain that leverage the Lan Man (LM) and/or NT Lan Man (NTLM) authentication protocols. |
| CAPEC-645 | Use of Captured Tickets (Pass The Ticket) An adversary uses stolen Kerberos tickets to access systems/resources that leverage the Kerberos authentication protocol. The Kerberos authentication protocol centers around a ticketing system which is used to request/grant access to services and to then access the requested services. An adversary can obtain any one of these tickets (e.g. Service Ticket, Ticket Granting Ticket, Silver Ticket, or Golden Ticket) to authenticate to a system/resource without needing the account's credentials. Depending on the ticket obtained, the adversary may be able to access a particular resource or generate TGTs for any account within an Active Directory Domain. |
| CAPEC-652 | Use of Known Kerberos Credentials An adversary obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate Kerberos credentials (e.g. Kerberos service account userID/password or Kerberos Tickets) with the goal of achieving authenticated access to additional systems, applications, or services within the domain. |
| CAPEC-653 | Use of Known Operating System Credentials An adversary guesses or obtains (i.e. steals or purchases) legitimate operating system credentials (e.g. userID/password) to achieve authentication and to perform authorized actions on the system, under the guise of an authenticated user or service. This applies to any Operating System. |
References
REF-44
24 Deadly Sins of Software SecurityMichael Howard, David LeBlanc, John Viega.
REF-1283
OT:ICEFALL: The legacy of "insecure by design" and its implications for certifications and risk managementForescout Vedere Labs.
https://www.forescout.com/resources/ot-icefall-report/
Submission
| Name | Organization | Date | Date release | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonymous Tool Vendor (under NDA) | Draft 3 |
Modifications
| Name | Organization | Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Dalci | Cigital | updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Other_Notes, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description, Relationships, Type | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Applicable_Platforms, Observed_Examples, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Detection_Factors, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Mapping_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Observed_Examples |
The information presented on CVE Find originates from several carefully selected reference sources. CVE data is provided by MITRE Corporation and the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). The Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog is sourced from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), while EPSS scores come from FIRST.org. Additionally, data regarding software weaknesses (CWE) and common attack patterns (CAPEC) is maintained by MITRE Corporation, and information on hardware and software configurations (CPE) is provided by the NVD.