CWE-353 Base Draft Medium likelihood

Missing Support for Integrity Check

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses a communication protocol that lacks built-in integrity verification, such as a checksum or cryptographic hash, to detect if data has been altered or…

Definition

What is CWE-353?

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses a communication protocol that lacks built-in integrity verification, such as a checksum or cryptographic hash, to detect if data has been altered or corrupted during transmission.

When a protocol doesn't include integrity checks like checksums, there's no reliable way for the receiving end to know if the data arrived exactly as it was sent. Corruption from network errors, hardware faults, or even malicious tampering can go undetected. This missing layer of validation means corrupted data is passed directly to the application, which must then bear the full responsibility for detecting these errors—if it can at all. The principle of end-to-end integrity argues that verification should happen at the lowest protocol layer where it can be fully implemented. A protocol-level checksum is the most effective guard because it validates an entire message or session, not just individual network packets. While applications should still perform their own input validation, relying solely on that is riskier and less efficient than having the underlying communication channel guarantee data integrity from the start.

Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-353

No public CVE references are linked to this CWE in MITRE's catalog yet.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

1
Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.
2
Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.
3
Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.
4
Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable Java

In this example, a request packet is received, and privileged information is sent to the requester:

Vulnerable Java

while(true) {
  	DatagramPacket rp = new DatagramPacket(rData,rData.length);
  	outSock.receive(rp);
  	InetAddress IPAddress = rp.getAddress();
  	int port = rp.getPort();
  	out = secret.getBytes();
  	DatagramPacket sp =new DatagramPacket(out, out.length, IPAddress, port);
  	outSock.send(sp);
  }

Secure code example

Secure pseudo

// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}

What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.

Prevention checklist

How to prevent CWE-353

Architecture and Design Add an appropriately sized checksum to the protocol, ensuring that data received may be simply validated before it is parsed and used.
Implementation Ensure that the checksums present in the protocol design are properly implemented and added to each message before it is sent.

Detection signals

How to detect CWE-353

SAST High

Run static analysis (SAST) on the codebase looking for the unsafe pattern in the data flow.

DAST Moderate

Run dynamic application security testing against the live endpoint.

Runtime Moderate

Watch runtime logs for unusual exception traces, malformed input, or authorization bypass attempts.

Code review Moderate

Code review: flag any new code that handles input from this surface without using the validated framework helpers.

CWE-353

Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.

Plexicus turns CWE catalogs into evidence: every CWE-pattern is matched against your real code graph, reach is proven on a sandbox clone, and verified findings ship as reviewed PRs.

Request AI Swarm Pentest

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-353?

How serious is CWE-353?

MITRE rates the likelihood of exploit as Medium — exploitation is realistic but typically requires specific conditions.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-353?

MITRE has not specified affected platforms for this CWE — it can apply across most application stacks.

How can I prevent CWE-353?

Add an appropriately sized checksum to the protocol, ensuring that data received may be simply validated before it is parsed and used. Ensure that the checksums present in the protocol design are properly implemented and added to each message before it is sent.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-353?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-353 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.

Where can I learn more about CWE-353?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/353.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-353

CWE-345 Parent

Missing Support for Integrity Check

What is CWE-353?

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-353

Step-by-step attacker path

Vulnerable Java

Secure pseudo

How to prevent CWE-353

How to detect CWE-353

Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.

Frequently asked questions

Weaknesses related to CWE-353

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

Missing Source Correlation of Multiple Independent Data

Origin Validation Error

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Use of Less Trusted Source

Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data

Insufficient Type Distinction

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value

Further reading

Ready to validate what matters?

Check whether AI Swarm Pentest fits your environment.

Request received. Book the next step.

Sample evidence handover

Server-Side Request Forgery in `webhooks/receiver`