111 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions might enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker might specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker might specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system environment variables to set file permissions. If attackers can alter the system environment variables, they might use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker might use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


permissions := strconv.Atoi(os.Getenv("filePermissions"));
fMode := os.FileMode(permissions)
os.chmod(filePath, fMode);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system properties to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the system properties, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


String permissionMask = System.getProperty("defaultFileMask");
Path filePath = userFile.toPath();
...
Set<PosixFilePermission> perms = PosixFilePermissions.fromString(permissionMask);
Files.setPosixFilePermissions(filePath, perms);
...
References
[1] FIO01-J. Create files with appropriate access permissions CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example: The following code is designed to set proper file permissions for users uploading Web pages through FTP. It uses input from an HTTP request to mark a file as viewable for external users.


$rName = $_GET['publicReport'];
chmod("/home/". authenticateUser . "/public_html/" . rName,"0755");
...


However, if an attacker provides a malicious value for publicReport, such as "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd", the application will make the specified file readable to the attacker.

Example 2: The following code uses input from a configuration file to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the configuration file, they can use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


...
$mask = $CONFIG_TXT['perms'];
chmod($filename,$mask);
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example 1: The following code uses input from system environment variables to set file permissions. If attackers can alter the system environment variables, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


permissions = os.getenv("filePermissions");
os.chmod(filePath, permissions);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Allowing user input to directly alter file permissions may enable an attacker to access otherwise protected system resources.
Explanation
File permission manipulation errors occur when any of the following conditions are met:

1. An attacker is able to specify a path used in an operation that modifies permissions on the file system.

2. An attacker is able to specify the permissions assigned by an operation on the file system.

Example: The following code is designed to set proper file permissions for users uploading Web pages through FTP. It uses input from an HTTP request to mark a file as viewable for external users.


...
rName = req['publicReport']
File.chmod("/home/#{authenticatedUser}/public_html/#{rName}", "0755")
...


However, if an attacker provides a malicious value for publicReport, such as "../../localuser/public_html/.htpasswd", the application will make the specified file readable to the attacker.

Example 2: The following code uses input from a configuration file to set the default permission mask. If attackers can alter the configuration file, they may use the program to gain access to files manipulated by the program. If the program is also vulnerable to path manipulation, an attacker may use this vulnerability to access arbitrary files on system.


...
mask = config_params['perms']
File.chmod(filename, mask)
...
References
[1] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 264, CWE ID 732
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [15] CWE ID 732
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [16] CWE ID 732
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API3 Broken Object Property Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 7.3.3 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 732
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.file_permission_manipulation
Abstract
Debugging information helps attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
Explanation
If you are using Blaze DS to perform logging of any unexpected events, the services-config.xml descriptor file specifies a "Logging" XML element to describe various aspects of logging. It looks like the following:

Example:

<logging>
<target class="flex.messaging.log.ConsoleTarget" level="Debug">
<properties>
<prefix>[BlazeDS]</prefix>
<includeDate>false</includeDate>
<includeTime>false</includeTime>
<includeLevel>false</includeLevel>
<includeCategory>false</includeCategory>
</properties>
<filters>
<pattern>Endpoint.*</pattern>
<pattern>Service.*</pattern>
<pattern>Configuration</pattern>
</filters>
</target>
</logging>


This target tag takes an optional attribute called level, which indicates the log level. If the debug level is set to too detailed a level, your application may write sensitive data to the log file.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[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 11
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001312, CCI-001314, CCI-002420, CCI-003272
[8] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity, SI-11 Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II, APP3620 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002480 CAT II, APSC-DV-002570 CAT II, APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.flex_misconfiguration_debug_information
Abstract
Allowing an attacker to control a function's format string can result in a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is passed as the format string argument to a function like sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), or syslog().
Example 1: The following code copies a command line argument into a buffer using snprintf().


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
snprintf(buf,128,argv[1]);
}


This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and write to the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker may read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.) By using the %n formatting directive, the attacker may write to the stack, causing snprintf() to write the number of bytes output thus far to the specified argument (rather than reading a value from the argument, which is the intended behavior). A sophisticated version of this attack will use four staggered writes to completely control the value of a pointer on the stack.

Example 2: Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in Example 1.

Example 3: Simple format string vulnerabilities often result from seemingly innocuous shortcuts. The use of some such shortcuts is so ingrained that programmers might not even realize that the function they are using expects a format string argument.

For example, the syslog() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


Because the second parameter to syslog() is a format string, any formatting directives included in cmdBuf are interpreted as described in Example 1.

The following code shows a correct usage of syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.cpp.format_string
Abstract
An attacker may control the format string argument allowing an attack much like a buffer overflow.
Explanation
Format string vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is passed as the format string argument to a function like sprintf(), FormatMessageW(), syslog(), NSLog, or NSString.stringWithFormatExample 1: The following code utilizes a command line argument as a format string in NSString.stringWithFormat:.


int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128];
...
[NSString stringWithFormat:argv[1], argv[2] ];
}


This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and corrupt the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker may read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.)

Objective-C supports the legacy C standard libraries so the following examples are exploitable if your application uses C APIs.

Example 2: Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc:


printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);


This code produces the following output:


5 9 5 5


It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in Example 1.

Example 3: Simple format string vulnerabilities often result from seemingly innocuous shortcuts. The use of some such shortcuts is so ingrained that programmers might not even realize that the function they are using expects a format string argument.

For example, the syslog() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, cmdBuf);
...


Because the second parameter to syslog() is a format string, any formatting directives included in cmdBuf are interpreted as described in Example 1.

The following code shows a correct usage of syslog():


...
syslog(LOG_ERR, "%s", cmdBuf);
...
Example 4: Apple core classes provide interesting avenues for exploiting format string vulnerabilities.

For example, the String.stringByAppendingFormat() function is sometimes used as follows:


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:[MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...


stringByAppendingFormat will parse any format string characters contained within the NSString passed to it.

The following code shows a correct usage of stringByAppendingFormat():


...
NSString test = @"Sample Text.";
test = [test stringByAppendingFormat:@"%@", [MyClass
formatInput:inputControl.text]];
...
References
[1] T. Newsham Format String Attacks Guardent, Inc.
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 134
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.2 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 134
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.dataflow.objc.format_string
Abstract
The program uses an improperly constructed format string that contains a different number of conversion specifiers than the function has arguments. Incorrect format strings can lead the program to read data outside the bounds of allocated memory, which can allow access to sensitive information, introduce incorrect behavior, or crash the program.
Explanation
Buffer overflow is probably the best known form of software security vulnerability. Most software developers know what a buffer overflow vulnerability is, but buffer overflow attacks against both legacy and newly-developed applications are still quite common. Part of the problem is due to the wide variety of ways buffer overflows can occur, and part is due to the error-prone techniques often used to prevent them.

In a classic buffer overflow exploit, the attacker sends data to a program, which it stores in an undersized stack buffer. The result is that information on the call stack is overwritten, including the function's return pointer. The data sets the value of the return pointer so that when the function returns, it transfers control to malicious code contained in the attacker's data.

Although this type of stack buffer overflow is still common on some platforms and in some development communities, there are a variety of other types of buffer overflow, including heap buffer overflows and off-by-one errors among others. There are a number of excellent books that provide detailed information on how buffer overflow attacks work, including Building Secure Software [1], Writing Secure Code [2], and The Shellcoder's Handbook [3].

At the code level, buffer overflow vulnerabilities usually involve the violation of a programmer's assumptions. Many memory manipulation functions in C and C++ do not perform bounds checking and can easily exceed the allocated bounds of the buffers they operate upon. Even bounded functions, such as strncpy(), can cause vulnerabilities when used incorrectly. The combination of memory manipulation and mistaken assumptions about the size or makeup of a piece of data is the root cause of most buffer overflows.

In this case, an improperly constructed format string causes the program to access values outside the bounds of allocated memory.

Example: The following reads arbitrary values from the stack because the number of format specifiers does not align with the number of arguments passed to the function.

void wrongNumberArgs(char *s, float f, int d) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong number of %.512s");
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 126
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M4 Unintended Data Leakage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[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 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_number_mismatch
Abstract
The program uses an improperly constructed format string that contains conversion specifiers that do not align with the types of the arguments passed to the function. Incorrect format strings can lead the program to convert values incorrectly and potentially read or write outside the bounds of allocated memory, which can introduce incorrect behavior or crash the program.
Explanation
Buffer overflow is probably the best known form of software security vulnerability. Most software developers know what a buffer overflow vulnerability is, but buffer overflow attacks against both legacy and newly-developed applications are still quite common. Part of the problem is due to the wide variety of ways buffer overflows can occur, and part is due to the error-prone techniques often used to prevent them.

In a classic buffer overflow exploit, the attacker sends data to a program, which it stores in an undersized stack buffer. The result is that information on the call stack is overwritten, including the function's return pointer. The data sets the value of the return pointer so that when the function returns, it transfers control to malicious code contained in the attacker's data.

Although this type of stack buffer overflow is still common on some platforms and in some development communities, there are a variety of other types of buffer overflow, including heap buffer overflows and off-by-one errors among others. There are a number of excellent books that provide detailed information on how buffer overflow attacks work, including Building Secure Software [1], Writing Secure Code [2], and The Shellcoder's Handbook [3].

At the code level, buffer overflow vulnerabilities usually involve the violation of a programmer's assumptions. Many memory manipulation functions in C and C++ do not perform bounds checking and can easily exceed the allocated bounds of the buffers they operate upon. Even bounded functions, such as strncpy(), can cause vulnerabilities when used incorrectly. The combination of memory manipulation and mistaken assumptions about the size or makeup of a piece of data is the root cause of most buffer overflows.

In this case, an improperly constructed format string causes the program to improperly convert data values or to access values outside the bounds of allocated memory.

Example: The following code incorrectly converts f from a float using a %d format specifier.


void ArgTypeMismatch(float f, int d, char *s, wchar *ws) {
char buf[1024];
sprintf(buf, "Wrong type of %d", f);
...
}
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] J. Koziol et al. The Shellcoder's Handbook: Discovering and Exploiting Security Holes John Wiley & Sons
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 125, CWE ID 787
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [1] CWE ID 119, [5] CWE ID 125, [12] CWE ID 787
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [5] CWE ID 119, [4] CWE ID 125, [2] CWE ID 787
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [1] CWE ID 787, [3] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [1] CWE ID 787, [5] CWE ID 125, [19] CWE ID 119
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [1] CWE ID 787, [7] CWE ID 125, [17] CWE ID 119
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 119
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Format String (WASC-06)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Format String Attack
desc.internal.cpp.format_string_argument_type_mismatch
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.aspx?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.

...
String lang = Request.Form["lang"];
WebClient client = new WebClient();
client.BaseAddress = url;
NameValueCollection myQueryStringCollection = new NameValueCollection();
myQueryStringCollection.Add("q", lang);
client.QueryString = myQueryStringCollection;
Stream data = client.OpenRead(url);
...


URL: http://www.host.com/election.aspx?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=en">English<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.host.com/vote.aspx?poll_id=4567&lang=es">Spanish<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a lang such as en&poll_id=1, and then the attacker may be able to change the poll_id at will.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.example.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.

...
String lang = request.getParameter("lang");
GetMethod get = new GetMethod("http://www.example.com");
get.setQueryString("lang=" + lang + "&poll_id=" + poll_id);
get.execute();
...


URL: http://www.example.com?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="http://www.example.com/vote.php?lang=en&poll_id=4567">English<a>
Link2: <a href="http://www.example.com/vote.php?lang=es&poll_id=4567">Spanish<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a lang such as en&poll_id=1, and then the attacker will be able to change the poll_id at will.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter
It may take the data from the last parameter
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

Example 2: The following code uses input from an HTTP request to render two hyperlinks.


<%
...
$id = $_GET["id"];
header("Location: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=" . $id);
...
%>


URL: http://www.host.com/election.php?poll_id=4567
Link1: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
Link2: <a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>

The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a poll_id such as "4567&candidate=green", and then the resulting page will contain the following injected links and hence Mrs. Green will always be voted on an application server which picks the first parameter.
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=white">Vote for Mr. White<a>
<a href="vote.php?poll_id=4567&candidate=green&candidate=green">Vote for Mrs. Green<a>
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
Concatenating unvalidated input into a URL can allow an attacker to override the value of a request parameter. Attacker may be able to override existing parameter values, inject a new parameter or exploit variables out of a direct reach.
Explanation
HTTP Parameter Pollution (HPP) attacks consist of injecting encoded query string delimiters into other existing parameters. If a web application does not properly sanitize the user input, a malicious user may compromise the logic of the application to perform either client-side or server-side attacks. By submitting additional parameters to a web application, and if these parameters have the same name as an existing parameter, the web application may react in one of the following ways:

It may only take the data from the first parameter.
It may take the data from the last parameter.
It may take the data from all parameters and concatenate them together.


For example:
- ASP.NET/IIS uses all occurrences of the parameters
- Apache Tomcat uses only the first occurrence and ignores others
- mod_perl/Apache converts the value into an array of values

Example 1: Depending on the application server and the logic of the application itself, the following request might cause confusion to the authentication system and allow an attacker to impersonate another user.
http://www.server.com/login.php?name=alice&name=hacker

As this shows, the attacker already has name=alice specified, but they've added an additional name=alice&, and if this is being used on a server that takes the first occurrence, then this may impersonate alice in order to get further information regarding her account.
References
[1] HTTP Parameter Pollution Luca Carettoni, Independent Researcher & Stefano Di Paola, MindedSecurity
[2] HTTP Parameter Pollution Vulnerabilities in Web Applications Marco `embyte’ Balduzzi
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.http_parameter_pollution
Abstract
The application allows third party keyboard extensions to be installed.
Explanation
Keyboard extensions are allowed to read every single keystroke that a user enters. Third-party keyboards are normally used to ease the text input or to add additional emojis and they may log what the user enters or even send it to a remote server for processing. Malicious keyboards can also be distributed to act as a keylogger and read every key entered by the user in order to steal sensitive data such as credentials or credit card numbers.
References
[1] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[2] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.objc.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
The application allows third party keyboard extensions to be installed.
Explanation
Keyboard extensions are allowed to read every single keystroke that a user enters. Third-party keyboards are normally used to ease the text input or to add additional emojis and they may log what the user enters or even send it to a remote server for processing. Malicious keyboards can also be distributed to act as a keylogger and read every key entered by the user in order to steal sensitive data such as credentials or credit card numbers.
References
[1] UIApplicationDelegate Apple
[2] David Thiel iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers No Starch Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 522, CWE ID 829
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 522
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [21] CWE ID 522
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.3 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-3
desc.structural.swift.input_interception_keyboard_extensions_allowed
Abstract
Failure to detect and block automated attacks can enable an attacker to conduct brute force attacks or trigger denial of service conditions.
Explanation
All web forms in the application must be protected against automated submissions. An attacker can automatically submit fill and submit registration forms to create fake accounts or overwhelm the database. Contact and messaging forms that do not prevent automated form submissions can be used to spam the application administrators or users. Automated password cracking programs can target login forms with ineffective anti-automation mechanisms. Programmers must always assume that all user interfaces will be abused by attackers in order to find weaknesses.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 799
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.2.1 General Authenticator Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Anti-automation (WASC-21)
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.insufficient_anti_automation
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following uses an empty encryption key:


...
encryptionKey = "".
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key. Not only does using an empty encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code uses an empty encryption key:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "";
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, changing the empty encryption key requires a software patch. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
key := []byte("");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, changing the empty encryption key requires a software patch, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
private static String encryptionKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key. Not only does using an empty encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt,
kCCAlgorithmAES,
kCCOptionPKCS7Padding,
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
sizeof(plaintext),
ciphertext,
sizeof(ciphertext),
&numBytesEncrypted);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key. Not only does using an empty encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code initializes an encryption key variable to an empty string.

...
$encryption_key = '';

$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...

Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.



Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key. Not only does using an empty encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code initializes an encryption key variable to an empty string.

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
cipher = AES.new("", AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key. Not only does using an empty encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a password-based key derivation function with a key length of zero, which produces an empty encryption key:


require 'openssl'
...
dk = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac_sha1(password, salt, 100000, 0) # returns an empty string
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key. Not only does using an empty encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"",
0,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty encryption key cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account that is protected by the empty encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using an empty encryption key:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = ""
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses an empty encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the empty encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_empty_encryption_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.
Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:

...
DATA: lo_hmac TYPE Ref To cl_abap_hmac,
Input_string type string.

CALL METHOD cl_abap_hmac=>get_instance
EXPORTING
if_algorithm = 'SHA3'
if_key = space
RECEIVING
ro_object = lo_hmac.

" update HMAC with input
lo_hmac->update( if_data = input_string ).

" finalise hmac
lo_digest->final( ).

...


The code shown in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.
Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:

...
using (HMAC hmac = HMAC.Create("HMACSHA512"))
{
string hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(hmacKey);
hmac.Key = keyBytes;
...
}
...


The code in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.

Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:


import "crypto/hmac"
...
hmac.New(md5.New, []byte(""))
...


The code in Example 1 might run successfully, but anyone who has access to it can determine that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.
Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:

...
private static String hmacKey = "";
byte[] keyBytes = hmacKey.getBytes();
...
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "SHA1");
Mac hmac = Mac.getInstance("HmacSHA1");
hmac.init(key);
...


The code in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.
Example 1: The following code uses an empty HMAC key to generate the HMAC hash:

...
let hmacKey = "";
let hmac = crypto.createHmac("SHA256", hmacKey);
hmac.update(data);
...


The code in Example 1 might run successfully, but anyone with access to it might figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.

Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:


...
CCHmac(kCCHmacAlgSHA256, "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output);
...


The code in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.

Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:


import hmac
...
mac = hmac.new("", plaintext).hexdigest()
...


The code in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.

Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:

...
digest = OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('sha256', '', data)
...


The code in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Empty HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use an empty HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the size of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Using an empty key undermines the cryptographic strength of the HMAC function.

Example 1: The following code uses an empty key to compute the HMAC:


...
CCHmac(UInt32(kCCHmacAlgSHA256), "", 0, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output)
...


The code in Example 1 may run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will be able to figure out that it uses an empty HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty HMAC key unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function. Also, the code in Example 1 is vulnerable to forgery and key recovery attacks.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_hmac_key
Abstract
Using a key generated by a password-based key derivation function that was passed an empty value for its password argument might compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rdb = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("", salt,100000);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.dotnet.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
An empty password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword("");
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


const pbkdfPassword = "";
crypto.pbkdf2(
pbkdfPassword,
salt,
numIterations,
keyLen,
hashAlg,
function (err, derivedKey) { ... }
)


Not only can anyone with access to the code determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
An empty password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.

Example 2: Some lower-level APIs may require passing the length of certain arguments as well as the argument values themselves, such that a function can read the argument's value as a number of consecutive bytes beginning at the argument's location in memory. The following code passes zero as the password length argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


In this scenario, even if password contains a strong, appropriately managed password value, passing its length as zero will result in an empty, null, or otherwise unexpected weak password value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
An empty password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
$zip = new ZipArchive();
$zip->open("test.zip", ZipArchive::CREATE);
$zip->setEncryptionIndex(0, ZipArchive::EM_AES_256, "");
...


Anyone with access to the code can determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument. Additionally, anyone with even basic cracking techniques might successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
An empty password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
...
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', '', salt, 100000)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
An empty password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac('', salt, 100000, 256, 'SHA256')
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
An empty password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing an empty password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes the empty string as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
"",
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on an empty password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on an empty password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the empty password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of an empty password.

Example 2: Some lower-level APIs may require passing the length of certain arguments as well as the argument values themselves, such that a function can read the argument's value as a number of consecutive bytes beginning at the argument's location in memory. The following code passes zero as the password length argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
password,
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


In this scenario, even if password contains a strong, appropriately managed password value, passing its length as zero will result in an empty, null, or otherwise unexpected weak password value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_empty_pbe_password
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl".
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
var encryptionKey:String = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var key:ByteArray = Hex.toArray(Hex.fromString(encryptionKey));
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", key, padding);
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never hardcode an encryption key because it makes the encryption key visible to all of the project's developers, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. Changing the encryption key after the code is in production requires a software patch. If the account that the encryption key protects is compromised, the organization must choose between security and system availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a hardcoded encryption key:


...
Blob encKey = Blob.valueOf('YELLOW_SUBMARINE');
Blob encrypted = Crypto.encrypt('AES128', encKey, iv, input);
...


Anyone with access to the code can see the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key without a software patch. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Any attacker with access to the application executable can extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.apex.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
using (SymmetricAlgorithm algorithm = SymmetricAlgorithm.Create("AES"))
{
string encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey);
algorithm.Key = keyBytes;
...
}


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key. Not only does hardcoding an encryption key allow all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
char encryptionKey[] = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the program ships, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers have access to the executable for the application they can disassemble the code, which will contain the value of the encryption key used.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cpp.hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
<cfset encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl" />
<cfset encryptedMsg = encrypt(msg, encryptionKey, 'AES', 'Hex') />
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.cfml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because all of the project's developers can view the encryption key, and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the code is in production, changing the encryption key requires a software patch. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
key := []byte("lakdsljkalkjlksd");
block, err := aes.NewCipher(key)
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
private static final String encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = encryptionKey.getBytes();
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "AES");
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded passwords can compromise system security in a way that is difficult to remedy.
Explanation
Never hardcode passwords. Not only does it expose the password to all of the project's developers, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a program patch is probably the only way to change the password. If the account the password protects is compromised, the system owners must choose between security and availability.
Example: The following JSON uses a hardcoded password:


...
{
"username":"scott"
"password":"tiger"
}
...


This configuration may be valid, but anyone who has access to the configuration will have access to the password. After the program is released, changing the default user account "scott" with a password of "tiger" is difficult. Anyone with access to this information can use it to break into the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.json.password_management_hardcoded_password
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
NSString encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key. Not only does hardcoding an encryption key allow all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key to encrypt information:


...
$encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key';

//$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt('hardcoded_encryption_key');
$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the encryption key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded encryption key ('hardcoded_encryption_key') unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information can use it to compromise data encrypted by the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.



Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key. Not only does hardcoding an encryption key allow all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key to encrypt information:

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
encryption_key = b'_hardcoded__key_'
cipher = AES.new(encryption_key, AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the encryption key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded encryption key _hardcoded__key_ unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information can use it to compromise data encrypted by the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key. Not only does hardcoding an encryption key allow all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.
Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


require 'openssl'
...
encryption_key = 'hardcoded_encryption_key'
...
cipher = OpenSSL::Cipher::AES.new(256, 'GCM')
cipher.encrypt
...
cipher.key=encryption_key
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the encryption key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded encryption key "hardcoded_encryption_key" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information can use it to compromise data encrypted by the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key. Not only does hardcoding an encryption key allow all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
let encryptionKey = "YELLOW_SUBMARINE"
...
Example 2: The following code performs AES encryption using a hardcoded encryption key:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
"YELLOW_SUBMARINE",
16,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the program ships, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never hardcode an encryption key because it makes the encryption key visible to all of the project's developers, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. Changing the encryption key after the code is in production requires a software patch. If the account that the encryption key protects is compromised, the organization must choose between security and system availability.

Example 1: The following example shows an encryption key inside a .pem file:


...
-----BEGIN RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
MIICXwIBAAKBgQCtVacMo+w+TFOm0p8MlBWvwXtVRpF28V+o0RNPx5x/1TJTlKEl
...
DiJPJY2LNBQ7jS685mb6650JdvH8uQl6oeJ/aUmq63o2zOw=
-----END RSA PRIVATE KEY-----
...


Anyone with access to the code can see the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Any attacker with access to the application executable can extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.regex.universal.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an encryption key because it allows all of the project's developers to view the encryption key, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the code is in production, a software patch is required to change the encryption key. If the account that is protected by the encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded encryption key:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl"
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Anyone with access to the code has access to the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. If attackers had access to the executable for the application, they could extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never hardcode an encryption key because it makes the encryption key visible to all of the project's developers, and makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. Changing the encryption key after the code is in production requires a software patch. If the account that the encryption key protects is compromised, the organization must choose between security and system availability.

Example 1: The following example shows an encryption key inside the secrets.yml file of a Ruby on Rails configuration:


...
production:
secret_key_base: 0ab25e26286c4fb9f7335947994d83f19861354f19702b7bbb84e85310b287ba3cdc348f1f19c8cdc08a7c6c5ad2c20ad31ecda177d2c74aa2d48ec4a346c40e
...


Anyone with access to the code can see the encryption key. After the application has shipped, there is no way to change the encryption key unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Any attacker with access to the application executable can extract the encryption key value.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.yaml.key_management_hardcoded_encryption_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:

...
DATA: lo_hmac TYPE Ref To cl_abap_hmac,
Input_string type string.

CALL METHOD cl_abap_hmac=>get_instance
EXPORTING
if_algorithm = 'SHA3'
if_key = 'secret_key'
RECEIVING
ro_object = lo_hmac.

" update HMAC with input
lo_hmac->update( if_data = input_string ).

" finalise hmac
lo_digest->final( ).

...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "secret_key" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.abap.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:

...
using (HMAC hmac = HMAC.Create("HMACSHA512"))
{
string hmacKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(hmacKey);
hmac.Key = keyBytes;
...
}


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "hmacKey" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys can compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:


import "crypto/hmac"
...
hmac.New(sha256.New, []byte("secret"))
...


This code runs successfully, but anyone who has access to the source has access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "secret" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:

...
private static String hmacKey = "lakdsljkalkjlksdfkl";
byte[] keyBytes = hmacKey.getBytes();
...
SecretKeySpec key = new SecretKeySpec(keyBytes, "SHA1");
Mac hmac = Mac.getInstance("HmacSHA1");
hmac.init(key);
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "hmacKey" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] MSC03-J. Never hard code sensitive information CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key makes it available to anyone with access to the source, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:

const hmacKey = "a secret";
const hmac = createHmac('sha256', hmacKey);
hmac.update(data);
...


This code runs successfully, but anyone with access to it has access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded hmacKey unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.

Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:


...
CCHmac(kCCHmacAlgSHA256, "secret", 6, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output);
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "secret" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:


import hmac
...
mac = hmac.new("secret", plaintext).hexdigest()
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "secret" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.
Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:

...
digest = OpenSSL::HMAC.digest('sha256', 'secret_key', data)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "secret_key" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
Hardcoded HMAC keys could compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to hardcode an HMAC key. The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the confidentiality of the secret key, which is used for the calculation and verification of the message authentication values. Hardcoding an HMAC key allows anyone with access to the source to view it, and undermines the cryptographic strength of the function.

Example: The following code uses a hardcoded key to compute the HMAC:


...
CCHmac(UInt32(kCCHmacAlgSHA256), "secret", 6, plaintext, plaintextLen, &output)
...


This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the HMAC key. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded HMAC key "secret" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information could use it to compromise the HMAC function.
References
[1] RFC 2104 - HMAC: Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[2] New Results on NMAC/HMAC when Instantiated with Popular Hash Functions Journal of Universal Computer Science (J.UCS)
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.7.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_hmac_key
Abstract
A hardcoded password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing a hardcoded password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass an empty value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the empty password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on an empty password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
Rfc2898DeriveBytes rdb = new Rfc2898DeriveBytes("password", salt,100000);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.dotnet.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
A hardcoded password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing a hardcoded password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword("password");
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Generating and using a cryptographic key based on a hardcoded password can compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


const pbkdfPassword = "a secret";
crypto.pbkdf2(
pbkdfPassword,
salt,
numIterations,
keyLen,
hashAlg,
function (err, derivedKey) { ... }
)


Not only can anyone with access to the code determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Generating and using a cryptographic key based on a hardcoded password may compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
"secret",
6,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
A hardcoded password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing a hardcoded password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
$zip = new ZipArchive();
$zip->open("test.zip", ZipArchive::CREATE);
$zip->setEncryptionIndex(0, ZipArchive::EM_AES_256, "hardcodedpassword");
...


Anyone with access to the code can determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument. Additionally, anyone with even basic cracking techniques might successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
A hardcoded password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing a hardcoded password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


from hashlib import pbkdf2_hmac
...
dk = pbkdf2_hmac('sha256', 'password', salt, 100000)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
A hardcoded password is used to generate a key from a password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). Providing a hardcoded password to a PBKDF compromises system security in a way that is not easily remedied.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
key = OpenSSL::PKCS5::pbkdf2_hmac('password', salt, 100000, 256, 'SHA256')
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Generating and using a cryptographic key based on a hardcoded password may compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Never pass a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function (PBKDF). In this scenario, the derived key is based mostly on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the hardcoded password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a hardcoded password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a hardcoded value as the password argument to a cryptographic PBKDF:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
"secret",
6,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a hardcoded password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a hardcoded password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the hardcoded password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a hardcoded password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 798
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_hardcoded_pbe_password
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
var encryptionKey:ByteArray = null;
...
var aes.ICipher = Crypto.getCipher("aes-cbc", encryptionKey, padding);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.actionscript.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key. Not only does using a null encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code uses a null encryption key:


...
char encryptionKey[] = null;
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.cpp.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, and it is extremely difficult to fix the problem. After the offending code is in production, changing the null encryption key requires a software patch. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
aes.NewCipher(nil)
...


Anyone with access to the code can determine that it uses a null encryption key. Additionally, anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.golang.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
SecretKeySpec key = null;
....
Cipher encryptCipher = Cipher.getInstance("AES");
encryptCipher.init(Cipher.ENCRYPT_MODE, key);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
var crypto = require('crypto');
var encryptionKey = null;
var algorithm = 'aes-256-ctr';
var cipher = crypto.createCipher(algorithm, encryptionKey);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.javascript.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
CCCrypt(kCCEncrypt,
kCCAlgorithmAES,
kCCOptionPKCS7Padding,
nil,
0,
iv,
plaintext,
sizeof(plaintext),
ciphertext,
sizeof(ciphertext),
&numBytesEncrypted);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Assigning null to encryption key variables is a bad idea because it can allow attackers to expose sensitive and encrypted information. Not only does using a null encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code initializes an encryption key variable to null.


...
$encryption_key = NULL;

$filter = new Zend_Filter_Encrypt($encryption_key);

$filter->setVector('myIV');

$encrypted = $filter->filter('text_to_be_encrypted');
print $encrypted;
...

Anyone who has access to the code would be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, and anyone employing even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Windows Data Protection Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.php.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.



Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.sql.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
Assigning None to encryption key variables is a bad idea because it can allow attackers to expose sensitive and encrypted information. Not only does using a null encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example: The following code initializes an encryption key variable to null.

...
from Crypto.Ciphers import AES
cipher = AES.new(None, AES.MODE_CFB, iv)
msg = iv + cipher.encrypt(b'Attack at dawn')
...


Anyone who has access to the code would be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, and anyone employing even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key. Not only does using a null encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Anyone who has access to the code would be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, and anyone employing even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key. Not only does using a null encryption key significantly reduce the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
CCCrypt(UInt32(kCCEncrypt),
UInt32(kCCAlgorithmAES128),
UInt32(kCCOptionPKCS7Padding),
nil,
0,
iv,
plaintext,
plaintext.length,
ciphertext.mutableBytes,
ciphertext.length,
&numBytesEncrypted)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the program ships, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Encrypting Your App's Files Apple
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[40] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Null encryption keys can compromise security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to use a null encryption key because it significantly reduces the protection afforded by a good encryption algorithm, but it also makes fixing the problem extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. If an account that is protected by the null encryption key is compromised, the owners of the system must choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code performs AES encryption using a null encryption key:


...
Dim encryptionKey As String
Set encryptionKey = vbNullString
Dim AES As New System.Security.Cryptography.RijndaelManaged
On Error GoTo ErrorHandler
AES.Key = System.Text.Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes(encryptionKey)
...
Exit Sub
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it uses a null encryption key, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully decrypt any encrypted data. After the application has shipped, a software patch is required to change the null encryption key. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null encryption key.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450, CCI-002478
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M10 Insufficient Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II, APSC-DV-003310 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.vb.key_management_null_encryption_key
Abstract
Generating and using a cryptographic key based on a null password may compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass a null value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function. In this scenario, the resulting derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the null password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a null password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a null value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function:


...
var encryptor = new StrongPasswordEncryptor();
var encryptedPassword = encryptor.encryptPassword(null);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a null password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a null password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the null password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.semantic.java.key_management_null_pbe_password
Abstract
Generating and using a cryptographic key based on a null password may compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass a null value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function. In this scenario, the resulting derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the null password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a null password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a null value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(kCCPBKDF2,
nil,
0,
salt,
saltLen
kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256,
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen);
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a null password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a null password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the null password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.objc.key_management_null_pbe_password
Abstract
Generating and using a cryptographic key based on a null password may compromise system security in a way that is not easy to remedy.
Explanation
It is never a good idea to pass a null value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function. In this scenario, the resulting derived key will be based solely on the provided salt (rendering it significantly weaker), and fixing the problem is extremely difficult. After the offending code is in production, the null password often cannot be changed without patching the software. If an account protected by a derived key based on a null password is compromised, the owners of the system might be forced to choose between security and availability.

Example 1: The following code passes a null value as the password argument to a cryptographic password-based key derivation function:


...
CCKeyDerivationPBKDF(CCPBKDFAlgorithm(kCCPBKDF2),
nil,
0,
salt,
saltLen,
CCPseudoRandomAlgorithm(kCCPRFHmacAlgSHA256),
100000,
derivedKey,
derivedKeyLen)
...


Not only will anyone who has access to the code be able to determine that it generates one or more cryptographic keys based on a null password argument, but anyone with even basic cracking techniques is much more likely to successfully gain access to any resources protected by the offending keys. If an attacker also has access to the salt value used to generate any of the keys based on a null password, cracking those keys becomes trivial. After the program ships, there is likely no way to change the null password unless the program is patched. An employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even if attackers only had access to the application's executable, they could extract evidence of the use of a null password.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 321
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002450
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.2 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.9.1 Cryptographic Software and Devices Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.4 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 6.4.2 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CRYPTO-2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6, Requirement 8.3.2
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[39] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.swift.key_management_null_pbe_password
Abstract
Cryptographic encryption or signing private keys should not be stored in plain text.
Explanation
Private keys used for encryption or signing should be considered sensitive data and should be encrypted with a strong passphrase prior to storage. This prevents unauthorized access by both attackers in the event of theft or a leak, as well as by users with insufficient permissions.

Example 1: The following code exports an RSA private key using an unencrypted PEM format:


from Crypto.PublicKey import RSA

key = RSA.generate(2048)
f = open('mykey.pem','w')
f.write(key.exportKey(format='PEM'))
f.close()
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000201, CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001820 CAT I, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.python.key_management_unencrypted_private_key
Abstract
Cryptographic encryption or signing private keys should not be stored in plain text.
Explanation
Private keys used for encryption or signing should be considered sensitive data and should be encrypted with a strong passphrase prior to storage. This prevents unauthorized access by both attackers in the event of theft or a leak, as well as by users with insufficient permissions.

Example 1: The following code exports an RSA private key using an unencrypted PEM format:


require 'openssl'

key = OpenSSL::PKey::RSA.new 2048
File.open('mykey.pem', 'w') do |file|
file.write(key.to_pem)
end
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 311
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000201, CCI-002450
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management (P1), SC-13 Cryptographic Protection (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SC-12 Cryptographic Key Establishment and Management, SC-13 Cryptographic Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M6 Broken Cryptography
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 3.5.1, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 7.2 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.3 - Terminal Software Design
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 311
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002010 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001820 CAT I, APSC-DV-002010 CAT II, APSC-DV-003100 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
desc.structural.ruby.key_management_unencrypted_private_key
Abstract
An application that performs an object-returning LDAP search will allow attackers to control the LDAP response to run arbitrary code on the server.
Explanation
An attacker able to tamper with an LDAP response, either by modifying the entry at rest or by intercepting and modifying the response on the fly (man-in-the-middle attack) will be able to inject special Java attributes into the LDAP entry. When performing an object-returning search, the Java attributes are decoded as Java objects using Java deserialization or JNDI dereference allowing attackers to gain remote code execution on the application server performing the search.

The application performs an object-returning search by setting the returningObjectFlag to true on the javax.naming.directory.SearchControls instance passed to the search method or by using a library function that sets this flag on its behalf.

In this case, the application is using the Spring Security LDAP authorization module which performs object-returning searches and is therefore vulnerable to LDAP Entry Poisoning.

Example: The following Beans configuration file configures the application to use Spring Security LDAP module as the authentication provider.


<beans ... >
<authentication-manager>
<ldap-authentication-provider
user-search-filter="(uid={0})"
user-search-base="ou=users,dc=example,dc=org"
group-search-filter="(uniqueMember={0})"
group-search-base="ou=groups,dc=example,dc=org"
group-role-attribute="cn"
role-prefix="ROLE_">
</ldap-authentication-provider>
</authentication-manager>
</beans>
References
[1] Introducing JNDI Injection and LDAP Entry Poisoning OpenText Fortify
[2] A Journey from JNDI/LDAP manipulation to remote code execution dream land BlackHat
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Cloud Computing Platform Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[15] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[16] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[17] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[18] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
desc.configuration.java.ldap_entry_poisoning
Abstract
The elevated privilege level required to perform operations such as chroot() should be dropped immediately after the operation is performed.
Explanation
When a program calls a privileged function, such as chroot(), it must first acquire root privilege. As soon as the privileged operation has completed, the program should drop root privilege and return to the privilege level of the invoking user.
Example: The following code calls chroot() to restrict the application to a subset of the file system below APP_HOME in order to prevent an attacker from using the program to gain unauthorized access to files located elsewhere. The code then opens a file specified by the user and processes the contents of the file.


...
chroot(APP_HOME);
chdir("/");

FILE* data = fopen(argv[1], "r+");
...


Constraining the process inside the application's home directory before opening any files is a valuable security measure. However, the absence of a call to setuid() with some non-zero value means the application is continuing to operate with unnecessary root privileges. Any successful exploit carried out by an attacker against the application can now result in a privilege escalation attack because any malicious operations will be performed with the privileges of the superuser. If the application drops to the privilege level of a non-root user, the potential for damage is substantially reduced.
References
[1] A. Chuvakin Using Chroot Securely
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 272
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.controlflow.cpp.least_privilege_violation
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read a value from a request object. The value then is logged.


...
DATA log_msg TYPE bal_s_msg.

val = request->get_form_field( 'val' ).

log_msg-msgid = 'XY'.
log_msg-msgty = 'E'.
log_msg-msgno = '123'.
log_msg-msgv1 = 'VAL: '.
log_msg-msgv2 = val.

CALL FUNCTION 'BAL_LOG_MSG_ADD'
EXPORTING
I_S_MSG = log_msg
EXCEPTIONS
LOG_NOT_FOUND = 1
MSG_INCONSISTENT = 2
LOG_IS_FULL = 3
OTHERS = 4.
...


If a user submits the string "FOO" for val, the following entry is logged:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO


However, if an attacker submits the string "FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR", the following entry is logged:


XY E 123 VAL: FOO XY E 124 VAL: BAR


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.abap.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


var params:Object = LoaderInfo(this.root.loaderInfo).parameters;
var val:String = String(params["username"]);
var value:Number = parseInt(val);
if (value == Number.NaN) {
trace("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.actionscript.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1.Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2.The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


...
string val = (string)Session["val"];
try {
int value = Int32.Parse(val);
}
catch (FormatException fe) {
log.Info("Failed to parse val= " + val);
}
...


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files could allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending upon the nature of the application, log files can be reviewed manually as required, or culled automatically by tools that search the logs for important data points or trends.

Examination of the log files can be hindered or conclusions based on log data can be wrong if an attacker is allowed to supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. An attacker might insert false entries into the log file by including log entry separator characters in their data. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker injects code or other commands into the log file and takes advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following code from a CGI script accepts a string submitted by the user and attempts to convert it into the long integer value it represents. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then its value is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
syslog(LOG_INFO,"Illegal value = %s",val);
...



If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


Illegal value=twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Clearly, the attacker may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries. For this type of log forging attack to be effective, an attacker must first identify valid log entry formats, but this can often be accomplished by through system information leaks in the target application.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cpp.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker might insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker might render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read a value from an HTML form. The value then is logged.


...
01 LOGAREA.
05 VALHEADER PIC X(50) VALUE 'VAL: '.
05 VAL PIC X(50).
...

EXEC CICS
WEB READ
FORMFIELD(NAME)
VALUE(VAL)
...
END-EXEC.

EXEC DLI
LOG
FROM(LOGAREA)
LENGTH(50)
END-EXEC.
...


If a user submits the string "FOO" for VAL, the following entry is logged:


VAL: FOO


However, if an attacker submits the string "FOO VAL: BAR", the following entry is logged:


VAL: FOO VAL: BAR


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cobol.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.


2. The data is written to an application or system log file.


Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a web form. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


<cflog file="app_log" application="No" Thread="No"
text="Failed to parse val="#Form.val#">


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0a%22Information%22%2C%2C%2202/28/01%22%2C%2214:53:40%22%2C%2C%22User%20logged%20out:%20badguy%22", the following entry is logged:


"Information",,"02/28/01","14:50:37",,"Failed to parse val=twenty-one"

"Information",,"02/28/01","14:53:40",,"User logged out: badguy"


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.cfml.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events, view transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


func someHandler(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request){
r.parseForm()
name := r.FormValue("name")
logout := r.FormValue("logout")
...
if (logout){
...
} else {
log.Printf("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s", name, logout)
}
}


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for logout and he was able to create a user with name "admin", the following entry is logged:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


However, if an attacker is able to create a username "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", the following entry is logged:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.golang.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example 1: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


...
String val = request.getParameter("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt(val);
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
log.info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.

Some think that in the mobile world, classic web application vulnerabilities, such as log forging, do not make sense -- why would the user attack themself? However, keep in mind that the essence of mobile platforms is applications that are downloaded from various sources and run alongside each other on the same device. The likelihood of running a piece of malware next to a banking application is high, which necessitates expanding the attack surface of mobile applications to include inter-process communication.

Example 2: The following code adapts Example 1 to the Android platform.


...
String val = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("val");
try {
int value = Integer.parseInt();
}
catch (NumberFormatException nfe) {
Log.e(TAG, "Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] IDS03-J. Do not log unsanitized user input CERT
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example 1: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


var cp = require('child_process');
var http = require('http');
var url = require('url');

function listener(request, response){
var val = url.parse(request.url, true)['query']['val'];
if (isNaN(val)){
console.log("INFO: Failed to parse val = " + val);
}
...
}
...
http.createServer(listener).listen(8080);
...


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val = twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.log_forging
Abstract
The identified function writes unvalidated user input to the log. An attacker could take advantage of this behavior to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the log.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending upon the nature of the application, log files can be reviewed manually as required, or culled automatically by tools that search the logs for important data points or trends.

Examination of the log files can be hindered or conclusions based on log data can be wrong if an attacker is allowed to supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. An attacker might insert false entries into the log file by including log entry separator characters in their data. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker injects code or other commands into the log file and takes advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example 1: The following code from a CGI script accepts a string submitted by the user and attempts to convert it into the long integer value it represents. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then its value is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


long value = strtol(val, &endPtr, 10);
if (*endPtr != '\0')
NSLog("Illegal value = %s",val);
...



If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Clearly, the attacker may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries. For this type of log forging attack to be effective, an attacker must first identify valid log entry formats, but this can often be accomplished through system information leaks in the target application.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


<?php
$name =$_GET['name'];
...
$logout =$_GET['logout'];

if(is_numeric($logout))
{
...
}
else
{
trigger_error("Attempt to log out: name: $name logout: $val");
}
?>


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for logout and he was able to create a user with name "admin", the following entry is logged:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


However, if an attacker is able to create a username "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", the following entry is logged:


PHP Notice: Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.php.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


name = req.field('name')
...
logout = req.field('logout')

if (logout):
...
else:
logger.error("Attempt to log out: name: %s logout: %s" % (name,logout))


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for logout and he was able to create a user with name "admin", the following entry is logged:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: twenty-one


However, if an attacker is able to create a username "admin+logout:+1+++++++++++++++++++++++", the following entry is logged:


Attempt to log out: name: admin logout: 1 logout: twenty-one
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example 1: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


...
val = req['val']
unless val.respond_to?(:to_int)
logger.info("Failed to parse val")
logger.info(val)
end
...


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Failed to parse val
INFO: twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=badguy


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.ruby.log_forging
Abstract
The identified function writes unvalidated user input to the log. An attacker could take advantage of this behavior to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the log.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending upon the nature of the application, log files can be reviewed manually as required, or culled automatically by tools that search the logs for important data points or trends.

Examination of the log files can be hindered or conclusions based on log data can be wrong if an attacker is allowed to supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. An attacker might insert false entries into the log file by including log entry separator characters in their data. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker injects code or other commands into the log file and takes advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example 1: The following code accepts a string submitted by the user and attempts to convert it into the integer value it represents. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then its value is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


...
let num = Int(param)
if num == nil {
NSLog("Illegal value = %@", param)
}
...


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


INFO: Illegal value = twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one\n\nINFO: User logged out=evil", the following entry is logged:


INFO: Illegal value=twenty-one

INFO: User logged out=evil


Clearly, the attacker may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries. For this type of log forging attack to be effective, an attacker must first identify valid log entry formats, but this can often be accomplished through system information leaks in the target application.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.log_forging
Abstract
Writing unvalidated user input to log files can allow an attacker to forge log entries or inject malicious content into the logs.
Explanation
Log forging vulnerabilities occur when:

1. Data enters an application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is written to an application or system log file.

Applications typically use log files to store a history of events or transactions for later review, statistics gathering, or debugging. Depending on the nature of the application, the task of reviewing log files may be performed manually on an as-needed basis or automated with a tool that automatically culls logs for important events or trending information.

Interpretation of the log files may be hindered or misdirected if an attacker can supply data to the application that is subsequently logged verbatim. In the most benign case, an attacker may be able to insert false entries into the log file by providing the application with input that includes appropriate characters. If the log file is processed automatically, the attacker may be able to render the file unusable by corrupting the format of the file or injecting unexpected characters. A more subtle attack might involve skewing the log file statistics. Forged or otherwise, corrupted log files can be used to cover an attacker's tracks or even to implicate another party in the commission of a malicious act [1]. In the worst case, an attacker may inject code or other commands into the log file and take advantage of a vulnerability in the log processing utility [2].

Example: The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the value fails to parse as an integer, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.


...
Dim Val As Variant
Dim Value As Integer
Set Val = Request.Form("val")
If IsNumeric(Val) Then
Set Value = Val
Else
App.EventLog "Failed to parse val=" & Val, 1
End If
...


If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one


However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0a+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:


Failed to parse val=twenty-one

User logged out=badguy


Clearly, attackers may use this same mechanism to insert arbitrary log entries.
References
[1] A. Muffet The night the log was forged.
[2] G. Hoglund, G. McGraw Exploiting Software Addison-Wesley
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 117
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AU, SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information (P1), AU-10 Non-Repudiation (P2), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AU-9 Protection of Audit Information, AU-10 Non-Repudiation, SC-24 Fail in Known State, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A09 Security Logging and Monitoring Failures
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.2.1 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.1 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 7.3.1 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3), 7.3.2 Log Protection Requirements (L2 L3)
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2, Requirement 10.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 10.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 10.3.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 8.4 - Activity Tracking, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3690.2 CAT II, APP3690.4 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000590 CAT II, APSC-DV-002320 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.log_forging