CWE-521 Base Draft

Weak Password Requirements

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to enforce strong password policies, making user accounts easier to compromise through guessing or automated attacks.

Definition

What is CWE-521?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to enforce strong password policies, making user accounts easier to compromise through guessing or automated attacks.
Passwords are the most common form of user authentication, acting as a memorized secret to verify identity. If password rules are too weak—like allowing short, simple, or common passwords—attackers can quickly guess or brute-force them, leading to unauthorized account access. The required strength depends on what the system protects; a social media account needs different safeguards than a banking application. Implementing effective password requirements is a critical security control. Developers must establish and enforce policies that mandate sufficient length, complexity, and uniqueness, while also considering user experience through secure alternatives like password managers. Getting this balance right is essential for protecting user accounts and maintaining trust in the authentication system.
Auswirkungen in der Praxis

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-521

  • key server application does not require strong passwords

Wie Angreifer es ausnutzen

Angreiferpfad Schritt für Schritt

  1. 1

    Identifiziere einen Codepfad, der nicht vertrauenswürdige Eingaben ohne Validierung verarbeitet.

  2. 2

    Erzeuge eine Payload, die das unsichere Verhalten auslöst — Injection, Traversal, Overflow oder Logik-Missbrauch.

  3. 3

    Liefere die Payload über einen normalen Request aus und beobachte die Reaktion der Anwendung.

  4. 4

    Iteriere, bis die Antwort Daten preisgibt, Angreifer-Code ausführt oder Berechtigungen eskaliert.

Verwundbares Codebeispiel

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE hat kein Codebeispiel für diese CWE veröffentlicht. Das untenstehende Muster ist illustrativ — kanonische Referenzen findest du unter Ressourcen.

Verwundbar pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Sicheres Codebeispiel

Secure pseudo

Sicher 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.
Präventions-Checkliste

How to prevent CWE-521

  • Architecture and Design A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: - Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length - Restrictions against password reuse - Restrictions against using common passwords - Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several additional attributes. - Complex passwords requiring mixed character sets (alpha, numeric, special, mixed case) - Increasing the range of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. - Unfortunately, a complex password may be difficult to memorize, encouraging a user to select a short password or to incorrectly manage the password (write it down). - Another disadvantage of this approach is that it often does not result in a significant increases in overal password complexity due to people's predictable usage of various symbols. 1. Large Minimum Length (encouraging passphrases instead of passwords) - Increasing the number of characters makes the password harder to crack and may be appropriate for systems relying on single factor authentication. - A disadvantage of this approach is that selecting a good passphrase is not easy and poor passwords can still be generated. Some prompting may be needed to encourage long un-predictable passwords. 1. Randomly Chosen Secrets - Generating a password for the user can help make sure that length and complexity requirements are met, and can result in secure passwords being used. - A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting password or passpharse may be too difficult to memorize, encouraging them to be written down. See NIST 800-63B [REF-1053] for further information on password requirements.
  • Architecture and Design Consider a second authentication factor beyond the password, which prevents the password from being a single point of failure. See CWE-308 for further information.
  • Implementation Consider implementing a password complexity meter to inform users when a chosen password meets the required attributes.
  • Implementation Previously, "password expiration" was widely advocated as a defense-in-depth approach to minimize the risk of weak passwords, and it has become a common practice. Password expiration requires a password to be changed within a fixed time window (such as every 90 days). However, this approach has significant limitations in the current threat landscape, and its utility has been reduced in light of the adoption of related protection mechanisms (such as password complexity and computational effort), along with the recognition that regular password changes often caused users to generate more predictable passwords. As a result, this is now a Discouraged Common Practice [REF-1488] [REF-1489], especially as the sole factor in protecting passwords. It is still strongly encouraged to force password changes in case of evidence of compromise, but this is not the same as a forced "expiration" on an arbitrary time frame.
Erkennungssignale

How to detect CWE-521

Automated Static Analysis High

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Plexicus Auto-Fix

Plexicus erkennt CWE-521 automatisch und öffnet in unter 60 Sekunden einen Fix-PR.

Codex Remedium scannt jeden Commit, identifiziert genau diese Schwachstelle und liefert einen reviewer-ready Pull Request mit dem Patch. Keine Tickets. Keine Hand-offs.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Frequently asked questions

Was ist CWE-521?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to enforce strong password policies, making user accounts easier to compromise through guessing or automated attacks.

Wie gravierend ist CWE-521?

MITRE hat für diese Schwachstelle keine Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit veröffentlicht. Behandle sie als mittlere Auswirkung, bis dein Threat Model anderes belegt.

Welche Sprachen oder Plattformen sind von CWE-521 betroffen?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Not Technology-Specific.

Wie kann ich CWE-521 verhindern?

A product's design should require adherance to an appropriate password policy. Specific password requirements depend strongly on contextual factors, but it is recommended to contain the following attributes: - Enforcement of a minimum and maximum length - Restrictions against password reuse - Restrictions against using common passwords - Restrictions against using contextual string in the password (e.g., user id, app name) Depending on the threat model, the password policy may include several…

Wie erkennt und behebt Plexicus CWE-521?

Die SAST-Engine von Plexicus erkennt die Datenfluss-Signatur von CWE-521 bei jedem Commit. Bei einem Treffer öffnet unser Codex-Remedium-Agent einen Fix-PR mit korrigiertem Code, Tests und einer einzeiligen Zusammenfassung für den Reviewer.

Wo erfahre ich mehr über CWE-521?

MITRE veröffentlicht die kanonische Definition unter https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/521.html. Für ergänzende Hinweise kannst du auch die OWASP- und NIST-Dokumentation heranziehen.

Bereit, wenn du es bist

Schluss mit dem Bezahlen pro Entwickler.
Schließ den Kreislauf.

Plexicus ist die KI-native ASPM, die scannt, filtert, fixt, pentestet und erklärt — autonom. Unbegrenzte Entwickler, unbegrenzte Repos, Fair-Use-KI-Aktionen. Echter kostenloser Tarif, €269/mo jährlich, wenn du bereit bist.