CWE-521 Base Borrador

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.

Definición

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.
Impacto en el mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-521

  • key server application does not require strong passwords

Cómo lo explotan los atacantes

Ruta del atacante paso a paso

  1. 1

    Identifica una ruta de código que maneje entrada no confiable sin validación.

  2. 2

    Crea un payload que ejercite el comportamiento inseguro — inyección, traversal, overflow o abuso de lógica.

  3. 3

    Envía el payload a través de una solicitud normal y observa la reacción de la aplicación.

  4. 4

    Itera hasta que la respuesta filtre datos, ejecute código del atacante o escale privilegios.

Ejemplo de código vulnerable

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE no ha publicado un ejemplo de código para esta CWE. El patrón siguiente es ilustrativo — consulta Recursos para referencias canónicas.

Vulnerable pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Ejemplo de código seguro

Secure pseudo

Seguro 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.
Lista de prevención

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.
Señales de detección

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.)

Auto-corrección de Plexicus

Plexicus detecta automáticamente CWE-521 y abre un PR de corrección en menos de 60 segundos.

Codex Remedium escanea cada commit, identifica esta debilidad concreta y entrega un pull request listo para revisión con el parche. Sin tickets. Sin traspasos.

Preguntas frecuentes

Frequently asked questions

¿Qué es 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.

¿Qué gravedad tiene CWE-521?

MITRE no ha publicado una calificación de probabilidad de explotación para esta debilidad. Trátala como de impacto medio hasta que tu modelo de amenazas demuestre lo contrario.

¿Qué lenguajes o plataformas se ven afectados por CWE-521?

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

¿Cómo puedo prevenir CWE-521?

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…

¿Cómo detecta y corrige Plexicus CWE-521?

El motor SAST de Plexicus detecta la firma de flujo de datos para CWE-521 en cada commit. Cuando hay coincidencia, nuestro agente Codex Remedium abre un PR de corrección con el código corregido, las pruebas y un resumen de una línea para el revisor.

¿Dónde puedo aprender más sobre CWE-521?

MITRE publica la definición canónica en https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/521.html. También puedes consultar la documentación de OWASP y NIST para guías relacionadas.

Listo cuando tú lo estés

Deja de pagar por desarrollador.
Empieza a cerrar el bucle.

Plexicus es el ASPM nativo de IA que escanea, filtra, corrige, pentestea y explica — de forma autónoma. Desarrolladores ilimitados, repos ilimitados, acciones de IA de uso justo. Nivel gratuito real, €269/mo anual cuando estés listo.