Kingdom: Security Features

Software security is not security software. Here we're concerned with topics like authentication, access control, confidentiality, cryptography, and privilege management.

Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt

Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source.

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

string salt = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["salt"];
...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rfc = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("password", Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(salt));
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the property salt. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.dotnet.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-controlled salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

...
salt = getenv("SALT");
PKCS5_PBKDF2_HMAC(pass, sizeof(pass), salt, sizeof(salt), ITERATION, EVP_sha512(), outputBytes, digest);
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the environment variable SALT. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.cpp.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

...
Properties prop = new Properties();
prop.load(new FileInputStream("local.properties"));
String salt = prop.getProperty("salt");
...
PBEKeySpec pbeSpec=new PBEKeySpec(password);
SecretKeyFactory keyFact=SecretKeyFactory.getInstance(CIPHER_ALG);
PBEParameterSpec defParams=new PBEParameterSpec(salt,100000);
Cipher cipher=Cipher.getInstance(CIPHER_ALG);
cipher.init(cipherMode,keyFact.generateSecret(pbeSpec),defParams);
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the property salt. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

...
@property (strong, nonatomic) IBOutlet UITextField *inputTextField;
...
NSString *salt = _inputTextField.text;
const char *salt_cstr = [salt cStringUsingEncoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding];
...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
password,
passwordLen,
salt_cstr,
salt.length,
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the text in the UITextField inputTextField. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.objc.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source.

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:


function register(){
$password = $_GET['password'];
$username = $_GET['username'];
$salt = getenv('SALT');

$hash = hash_pbkdf2('sha256', $password, $salt, 100000);
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the environment variable SALT. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.php.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source.

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

import hashlib, binascii

def register(request):
password = request.GET['password']
username = request.GET['username']
salt = os.environ['SALT']

dk = hashlib.pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', password, salt, 100000)
hash = binascii.hexlify(dk)
store(username, hash)
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the environment variable SALT. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.python.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

...
salt=io.read
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac(pass, salt, iter_count, 256, 'SHA256')
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the text in salt. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.ruby.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt
Abstract
Potentially tainted user inputs should not be passed as the salt parameter to a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).
Explanation
Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt issues occur when:

1. Data enters a program through an untrusted source

2. User-controlled data is included within the salt, or used entirely as the salt within a Password-Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF).


As with many software security vulnerabilities, Weak Cryptographic Hash: User-Controlled PBE Salt is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. At its root, the vulnerability is straightforward: an attacker passes malicious data to an application, and the data is then used as all or part of the salt in a PBKDF.

The problem with having a user-defined salt is that it can enable various attacks:

1. The attacker may use this vulnerability to specify an empty salt for their own password. From this, it would be trivial to quickly derive their own password using a number of different password-based key derivation functions to leak information about the PBKDF implementation used within your application. This could make "cracking" other passwords easier by being able to limit the particular variant of hash used.
2. If the attacker is able to manipulate other users' salts, or trick other users into using an empty salt, this would enable them to compute "rainbow tables" for the application and more easily determine the derived values.

Example 1: The following code uses a user-controlled salt:

...
@IBOutlet weak var inputTextField : UITextField!
...
let salt = (inputTextField.text as NSString).dataUsingEncoding(NSUTF8StringEncoding)
let saltPointer = UnsafePointer<UInt8>(salt.bytes)
let saltLength = size_t(salt.length)
...
let algorithm : CCPBKDFAlgorithm = CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2)
let prf : CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm = CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256)
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(algorithm,
passwordPointer,
passwordLength,
saltPointer,
saltLength,
prf,
100000,
derivedKeyPointer,
derivedKeyLength)
...


The code in Example 1 will run successfully, but anyone who can get to this functionality will be able to manipulate the salt used to derive the key or password by modifying the text in the UITextField inputTextField. After the program ships, it can be nontrivial to undo an issue regarding user-controlled salts, as it is extremely difficult to know if a malicious user determined the salt of a password hash.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.5
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 328, CWE ID 760
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 MP
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.4.1 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.2 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.4.5 Credential Storage Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.3 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.3 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.2 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.3 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.4 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.5 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.6 Algorithms (L2 L3), 6.2.7 Algorithms (L3), 8.3.7 Sensitive Private Data (L2 L3), 9.1.2 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.3 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.3
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.3
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.3
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.1 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective 7.4 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3150.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3150.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3150.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3150.1 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3150.1 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3150.1 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3150.1 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-002020 CAT II, APSC-DV-002030 CAT II
desc.dataflow.swift.weak_cryptographic_hash_user_controlled_pbe_salt