← Back
CWE-325

68 CVEs • Abstraction: Base

Missing Cryptographic Step

The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.

JSON object

Loading...

CVEs (68)

CVE
VENDORS
PRODUCTS
UPDATED
PUBLISHED
CVSS
-
-
Oct 16, 2026
Oct 16, 2026
N/A· v4
3.1 LOW· v3
N/A· v2
IBM Db2 Genius Hub 1.0 could allow a remote authenticated attacker to bypass security restrictions due to a missing initialization vector in the cryptographic algorithm.
-
-
Oct 14, 2026
Oct 13, 2026
N/A· v4
8.7 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.10 and IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, and 9.0 could allow a remote attacker to bypass cryptographic signature verification due to improper verific...Show more
IBM WebSphere Application Server - Liberty 17.0.0.3 through 26.0.0.10 and IBM WebSphere Application Server 8.5, and 9.0 could allow a remote attacker to bypass cryptographic signature verification due to improper verification of cryptographic signature.Show less
-
-
Oct 9, 2026
Oct 9, 2026
6.3 MEDIUM· v4
N/A· v3
N/A· v2
Crux Agent from 1.9.0 before 2.0.3 uses the full SKA bilocation key as the WireGuard preshared key. When a peering session negotiates use of SHA-512, the key produced is 64 bytes instead of the 32 bytes WireGuard require...Show more
Crux Agent from 1.9.0 before 2.0.3 uses the full SKA bilocation key as the WireGuard preshared key. When a peering session negotiates use of SHA-512, the key produced is 64 bytes instead of the 32 bytes WireGuard requires. The agent does not validate this size; instead it attempts to use the `wg set` command to update the live tunnel, and write the invalid key to the WireGuard configuration file. The update fails, so the live tunnel keeps using its previous preshared key until the tunnel is shut down. The tunnel will fail to start when restarted. For a peer which has never successfully negotiated a 32-byte bilocation key in a Crux C2 organization which has the "Enforce SKA Use" setting turned off, no preshared key will be set for the tunnel. Therefore, an attacker who is able to intercept and store the peer's traffic, and has access (or will have access) to a cryptographically relevant quantum computer, will be able to decrypt the tunnel.Show less
-
-
Oct 2, 2026
Oct 2, 2026
8.7 HIGH· v4
N/A· v3
N/A· v2
Missing cryptographic step in the DSTU 7624 CCM mode implementation (KCcmBlockCipher) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows an attacker who can observe encrypted messages of known or chosen co...Show more
Missing cryptographic step in the DSTU 7624 CCM mode implementation (KCcmBlockCipher) in Legion of the Bouncy Castle Inc. bc-csharp before 2.7.0 allows an attacker who can observe encrypted messages of known or chosen content to forge ciphertexts with valid authentication tags, via messages encrypted without associated data. The cause is that the G1 block, which binds the nonce, the message length and the parameter flags into the CBC-MAC, was processed only when associated data was present. Without associated data the tag was a CBC-MAC of the plaintext alone, independent of the nonce. Only applications that use KCcmBlockCipher directly and supply no associated data are affected.Show less
1Mozilla
2Firefox
Thunderbird
Oct 19, 2026
Sep 29, 2026
N/A· v4
8.1 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Cryptography misuse in Storage: Quota Manager component. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox ESR 153.4, Thunderbird 157, Thunderbird 153.4, and Firefox 157.
-
-
Sep 24, 2026
Sep 23, 2026
1.3 LOW· v4
3.1 LOW· v3
2.1 LOW· v2
A vulnerability was identified in sfturing hosp_order up to 627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8. The affected element is the function MD5.getMD5 of the file ssm_pro/src/main/java/cn/sfturing/utils/MD5.java of the co...Show more
A vulnerability was identified in sfturing hosp_order up to 627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8. The affected element is the function MD5.getMD5 of the file ssm_pro/src/main/java/cn/sfturing/utils/MD5.java of the component User Password Handler. The manipulation leads to one-way hash without salt. The attack may be initiated remotely. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitability is described as difficult. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.Show less
1Dell
1Wyse Management Suite
Sep 21, 2026
Sep 15, 2026
N/A· v4
4.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
Dell Wyse Management Suite, versions prior to 2605.0.3.683, contain a Missing Cryptographic Step vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Infor...Show more
Dell Wyse Management Suite, versions prior to 2605.0.3.683, contain a Missing Cryptographic Step vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with remote access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Information tampering.Show less
-
-
Sep 9, 2026
Aug 27, 2026
N/A· v4
6.0 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
EAZ EazyFix 12.9 allows a Security Feature Bypass related to a "Missing Cryptographic Step" associated with "Secure Boot disable."
-
-
Aug 28, 2026
Aug 26, 2026
8.7 HIGH· v4
N/A· v3
N/A· v2
Multiple TP-Link Kasa smart home devices contain insufficient cryptographic protections in the local device communication protocol. An adjacent network attacker may intercept, replay or forge locally exchanged control me...Show more
Multiple TP-Link Kasa smart home devices contain insufficient cryptographic protections in the local device communication protocol. An adjacent network attacker may intercept, replay or forge locally exchanged control messages, potentially resulting in unauthorized device control. Successful exploitation could allow an attacker to manipulate the operational state of an affected device, resulting in unauthorized state changes, disruption of normal device functionality or a denial-of-service condition.Show less
1Google
1Chrome
Aug 3, 2026
Jul 30, 2026
N/A· v4
9.1 CRITICAL· v3
N/A· v2
Cryptographic Flaw in Enterprise in Google Chrome prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to bypass discretionary access control via malicious network traffic. (Chromium security sever...Show more
Cryptographic Flaw in Enterprise in Google Chrome prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed an attacker in a privileged network position to bypass discretionary access control via malicious network traffic. (Chromium security severity: High)Show less
-
-
Jul 21, 2026
Jul 21, 2026
7.0 HIGH· v4
6.8 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
Missing Cryptographic Step (CWE-325) vulnerability exists in certain FeliCa IC chips shipped in or before 2017. If the vulnerability is exploited, information stored in the IC chip may be read or tampered with.
1Microsoft
12Windows 10 1809
Windows 10 21h2Windows 10 22h2+9 more
Jul 17, 2026
Jul 14, 2026
N/A· v4
5.5 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
Missing cryptographic step in Windows Boot Loader allows an authorized attacker to bypass a security feature locally.
1Microsoft
5Windows 11 24h2
Windows 11 25h2Windows 11 26h1+2 more
Jul 21, 2026
Jul 14, 2026
N/A· v4
7.1 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Missing cryptographic step in Windows CryptoAPI allows an authorized attacker to perform tampering locally.
-
-
Jun 25, 2026
Jun 24, 2026
5.1 MEDIUM· v4
N/A· v3
N/A· v2
Missing cryptographic step in Caliptra Core Firmware (aes_256_gcm_update module) results in an incorrect GCM authentication tag. When the streaming AES-256-GCM API is used with empty AAD, the hardware GHASH accumulator s...Show more
Missing cryptographic step in Caliptra Core Firmware (aes_256_gcm_update module) results in an incorrect GCM authentication tag. When the streaming AES-256-GCM API is used with empty AAD, the hardware GHASH accumulator state is not saved after the first update call, causing the final tag to exclude the first batch of processed ciphertext. Ciphertext produced by that call may be modified without the tag reflecting the change. This issue affects Core Runtime Firmware: from 2.0.0 through 2.0.1, 2.1.0.Show less
1Deno
1Deno
Jun 26, 2026
Jun 23, 2026
N/A· v4
7.4 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Deno is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime. Prior to 2.8.1, node:crypto.checkPrime(candidate[, options][, callback]) and crypto.checkPrimeSync(candidate[, options]) ran no Miller-Rabin rounds at all when t...Show more
Deno is a JavaScript, TypeScript, and WebAssembly runtime. Prior to 2.8.1, node:crypto.checkPrime(candidate[, options][, callback]) and crypto.checkPrimeSync(candidate[, options]) ran no Miller-Rabin rounds at all when the caller left options.checks at its default of 0. In that mode, the only test applied to the candidate was trial division by the primes up to 17,863. Any composite whose smallest prime factor exceeds that bound — for example the product of two primes just above it, such as 17,881 × 17,891 — was reported as true ("probably prime"). The same divergence affected the lower-level op_node_check_prime / op_node_check_prime_bytes paths that the polyfill calls into. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.8.1.Show less
-
-
Jun 17, 2026
Jun 12, 2026
7.0 HIGH· v4
N/A· v3
N/A· v2
A Missing Required Cryptographic Step vulnerability has been identified in Moxa's embedded Linux firmware for industrial computers and controllers. This vulnerability represents an incomplete remediation of CVE-2026-0714...Show more
A Missing Required Cryptographic Step vulnerability has been identified in Moxa's embedded Linux firmware for industrial computers and controllers. This vulnerability represents an incomplete remediation of CVE-2026-0714. The firmware introduced TPM2 parameter encryption as a countermeasure against CVE-2026-0714. However, an omission in the authorization session configuration causes the parameter encryption to provide no effective protection. An attacker with invasive physical access to the device can still capture TPM communications on the SPI bus and derive the LUKS disk encryption key in plaintext. While successful exploitation results in full compromise of the encrypted disk volume, the attack requires invasive physical access, including opening the device and attaching external equipment to the SPI bus. Remote exploitation is not possible, and the attack does not affect any downstream systems.Show less
1Openssl
1Openssl
Jun 17, 2026
Jun 9, 2026
N/A· v4
4.8 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impac...Show more
Issue summary: The implementations of AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) mishandle the authentication of AAD (Additional Authenticated Data) with an empty ciphertext allowing a forgery of such messages. Impact summary: An attacker can forge empty messages with arbitrary AAD to the victim's application using these ciphers. AES-SIV (RFC 5297) and AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) are nonce-misuse-resistant AEAD modes: they accept a key, nonce, optional AAD (bytes that are authenticated but not encrypted), and plaintext, and produces ciphertext plus a 16-byte tag. On decrypt, `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` is documented to return success only if the tag is verified succesfully. In OpenSSL's provider implementation of these ciphers, the expected tag is computed only when decryption function is invoked with non-empty data. If the caller supplies AAD and then calls `EVP_DecryptFinal_ex()` without invocation of the ciphertext update, which can happen when the received ciphertext length is zero, the tag is never recalculated and still holds its all-zeros value. When AES-GCM-SIV is used, an attacker who sends arbitrary AAD, empty ciphertext, and all-zeros tag passes authentication under any key they do not know, single-shot. When AES-SIV is used, for mounting the attack it's necessary for the application to reuse the decryption context without resetting the key. AES-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.0. AES-GCM-SIV is implemented since OpenSSL 3.2. No protocols implemented in OpenSSL itself (TLS/CMS/PKCS7/HPKE/QUIC) support either AES-GCM-SIV or AES-SIV. To mount an attack, the applications must implement their own protocol and use the EVP interface. Also they must skip the ciphertext update when a message with an empty ciphertext arrives. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as these algorithms are not FIPS approved and the affected code is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.Show less
1Openssl
1Openssl
Jun 17, 2026
Jun 9, 2026
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message e...Show more
Issue summary: When an application drives an AES-OCB context through the public EVP_Cipher() one-shot interface, the application-supplied initialisation vector (IV) is silently discarded. Impact summary: Every message encrypted under the same key uses the same effective nonce regardless of the IV supplied by the caller, resulting in (key, nonce) reuse and loss of confidentiality. If the same code path is used to compute the authentication tag, the tag depends only on the (key, IV) pair and not on the plaintext or ciphertext, allowing universal forgery of arbitrary ciphertext from a single captured message. OpenSSL provides two ways to drive a cipher: the documented streaming interface (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) and a lower-level one-shot, EVP_Cipher(), whose documentation explicitly recommends against use by applications in favour of EVP_CipherUpdate() and EVP_CipherFinal_ex(). The OCB provider's streaming handler flushes the application-supplied IV into the OCB context before processing data; the one-shot handler did not. Every call to EVP_Cipher() on an AES-OCB context therefore ran with the all-zero key-derived offset state left by cipher initialisation, regardless of the caller's IV. If EVP_EncryptFinal_ex() is subsequently used to obtain the authentication tag, the deferred IV setup runs at that point and clears the running checksum that should have been accumulated over the plaintext. The resulting tag is a function of (key, IV) only and verifies against any ciphertext produced under the same (key, IV) pair. The OpenSSL SSL/TLS implementation is not affected: AES-OCB is not a TLS cipher suite, and libssl does not call EVP_Cipher() in any case. Applications that drive AES-OCB through the documented streaming AEAD API (EVP_CipherUpdate / EVP_CipherFinal_ex) are not affected. Only applications that combine the AES-OCB cipher with the EVP_Cipher() one-shot API are vulnerable. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as AES-OCB is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.Show less
1Openssl
1Openssl
Jul 20, 2026
Jun 9, 2026
N/A· v4
3.7 LOW· v3
N/A· v2
Issue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership. Impact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carryi...Show more
Issue summary: When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the peer key is not properly checked for the subgroup membership. Impact summary: A malicious peer which presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim's p and g parameters, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor (p−1)/q_local), and a public value Y of order r can recover the victim's private key after a small number of key exchange attempts. When EVP_PKEY_derive_set_peer() is called with a DHX (X9.42) peer key, the subgroup membership check Y^q ≡ 1 (mod p) is performed using the peer's own q parameter, not the local key's q. The peer's domain parameters are then matched against the domain parameters of the private key, but the value of q is not compared. A malicious peer who presents an X9.42 key carrying the victim's p, g, a forged q = r (a small prime factor of the cofactor), and a public value Y of order r passes all checks. The shared secret then takes only r distinct values, leaking priv mod r. Repeating for each small-prime factor of the cofactor and combining via CRT recovers the full private key (Lim–Lee / small-subgroup-confinement attack). The realistic attack surface is narrow: principally CMP deployments with long-lived RA/CA DHX keys and bespoke enterprise or government applications using X9.42 DHX static keys with interactive protocols and therefore this issue was assigned Low severity. The FIPS modules in 4.0, 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.1.2 and 3.0 are affected by this issue.Show less
1Netgear
4Rax120 Firmware
Rax35 FirmwareRax38 Firmware+1 more
Jun 18, 2026
Jun 9, 2026
4.6 MEDIUM· v4
5.9 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
An improper implementation of TLS certificate validation vulnerability found in NETGEAR's ReadyCloud client app which could allow an attacker to perform attacker-in-the-middle (MiTM) style attacks impacting the product's...Show more
An improper implementation of TLS certificate validation vulnerability found in NETGEAR's ReadyCloud client app which could allow an attacker to perform attacker-in-the-middle (MiTM) style attacks impacting the product's confidentiality. This vulnerability affects the listed NETGEAR models.Show less