CWE · MITRE source
CWE-297Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch
The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.
Even if a certificate is well-formed, signed, and follows the chain of trust, it may simply be a valid certificate for a different site than the site that the product is interacting with. In order to ensure data integrity, the certificate must be valid, and it must pertain to the site that is being accessed. Even if the product attempts to check the hostname, it is still possible to incorrectly check the hostname. For example, attackers could create a certificate with a name that begins with a trusted name followed by a NUL byte, which could cause some string-based comparisons to only examine the portion that contains the trusted name.
Last updated: 04 July 2026 00:28 UTC
Cumulative inbound coverage
How completely the frameworks we cross-walk collectively cover this — the verdict is the strongest single mapping (overlapping partials are not summed); breadth shows the corroboration behind it.
Collective: mostly · 4 mapping(s) from 2 framework(s): ATT&CK 3 (mostly) · ASVS 5.0 1 (mostly)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A07:2025 Authentication Failures.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (1)AI
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
SC-17 | Public Key Infrastructure Certificates | SC | Approved PKI issuance and trust stores enforce full certificate validation steps including name/hostname checks. |
MITRE ATT&CK techniques this weakness enables
Our own two-way CWE↔ATT&CK cross-walk — a direct mapping with no public source (the CWE→CAPEC→ATT&CK chain leaves most top weaknesses, incl. XSS and SQLi, mapped to nothing). Drafted by Grok and spot-checked by Claude Opus 4.8.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial).
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2020-1887 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0128 | 2020-03-13 |
CVE-2020-11050 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 0.0077 | 2020-05-07 |
CVE-2021-33695 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0054 | 2021-09-15 |
CVE-2025-46408 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0061 | 2025-09-15 |
CVE-2025-68637 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0022 | 2026-01-07 |
CVE-2018-10936 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0291 | 2018-08-30 |
CVE-2021-21385 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0070 | 2021-03-24 |
CVE-2020-14387 | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0110 | 2021-05-27 |
CVE-2022-32153 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0085 | 2022-06-15 |
CVE-2023-5909 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0044 | 2023-11-30 |
CVE-2024-34447 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0077 | 2024-05-03 |
CVE-2024-37015 | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0037 | 2024-08-13 |
CVE-2024-7346 | 5.5 | 7.2 | 0.0016 | 2024-09-03 |
CVE-2025-2190 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0031 | 2025-03-11 |
CVE-2025-3501 UPD | 5.5 | 8.2 | 0.0039 | 2025-04-29 |
CVE-2024-12925 | 5.5 | 7.3 | 0.0014 | 2025-09-01 |
CVE-2025-25253 UPD | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0010 | 2025-10-14 |
CVE-2026-26214 | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0018 | 2026-02-12 |
CVE-2026-41603 UPD | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0059 | 2026-04-28 |
CVE-2026-43869 UPD | 5.5 | 7.3 | 0.0063 | 2026-05-05 |
CVE-2026-42790 UPD | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0034 | 2026-05-27 |
CVE-2026-35563 UPD | 5.5 | 8.5 | 0.0018 | 2026-06-01 |
CVE-2026-44393 UPD | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0016 | 2026-06-04 |
CVE-2026-54275 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0027 | 2026-06-22 |
CVE-2014-3522 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 0.0558 | 2014-08-19 |