CWE-295 Improper Certificate Validation

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

• Integrity, Authentication: Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity — When a certificate is invalid or malicious, it might allow an attacker to spoof a trusted entity by interfering in the communication path between the host and client. The product might connect to a malicious host while believing it is a trusted host, or the product might be deceived into accepting spoofed data that appears to originate from a trusted host.

• [Architecture and Design, Implementation] Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key. • [Implementation] If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.

• Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis • Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Web Application Scanner • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Man-in-the-middle attack tool • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Source code Weakness Analyzer • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer • Architecture or Design Review: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

• CVE-2019-12496: A Go framework for robotics, drones, and IoT devices skips verification of root CA certificates by default. • CVE-2014-1266: Chain: incorrect "goto" in Apple SSL product bypasses certificate validation, allowing Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack (Apple "goto fail" bug). CWE-705 (Incorrect Control Flow Scoping) -> CWE-561 (Dead Code) -> CWE-295 (Improper Certificate Validation) -> CWE-393 (Return of Wrong Status Code) -> CWE-300 (Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint). The code's whitespace indentation did not reflect the actual control flow (CWE-1114) and did not explicitly delimit the block (CWE-483), which could have made it more difficult for human code auditors to detect the vulnerability. • CVE-2021-22909: Chain: router's firmware update procedure uses curl with "-k" (insecure) option that disables certificate validation (CWE-295), allowing adversary-in-the-middle (AITM) compromise with a malicious firmware image (CWE-494). • CVE-2008-4989: Verification function trusts certificate chains in which the last certificate is self-signed. • CVE-2012-5821: Chain: Web browser uses a TLS-related function incorrectly, preventing it from verifying that a server's certificate is signed by a trusted certification authority (CA). • CVE-2009-3046: Web browser does not check if any intermediate certificates are revoked. • CVE-2011-0199: Operating system does not check Certificate Revocation List (CRL) in some cases, allowing spoofing using a revoked certificate. • CVE-2012-5810: Mobile banking application does not verify hostname, leading to financial loss. • CVE-2012-3446: Cloud-support library written in Python uses incorrect regular expression when matching hostname. • CVE-2009-2408: Web browser does not correctly handle '\0' character (NUL) in Common Name, allowing spoofing of https sites. • CVE-2012-2993: Smartphone device does not verify hostname, allowing spoofing of mail services. • CVE-2012-5822: Application uses third-party library that does not validate hostname. • CVE-2012-5819: Cloud storage management application does not validate hostname. • CVE-2012-5817: Java library uses JSSE SSLSocket and SSLEngine classes, which do not verify the hostname. • CVE-2010-1378: Chain: incorrect calculation (CWE-682) allows attackers to bypass certificate checks (CWE-295) • CVE-2007-6746: library for SSL and TLS does not check the activation or expiration dates of CA certificates • CVE-2005-3170: LDAP client accepts certificates even if they are not from a trusted CA. • CVE-2009-0265: Chain: DNS server does not correctly check return value from the OpenSSL EVP_VerifyFinal function allows bypass of validation of the certificate chain. • CVE-2003-1229: Chain: product checks if client is trusted when it intended to check if the server is trusted, allowing validation of signed code. • CVE-2002-0862: Cryptographic API, as used in web browsers, mail clients, and other software, does not properly validate Basic Constraints. • CVE-2009-1358: Chain: OS package manager does not properly check the return value, allowing bypass using a revoked certificate.