CWE · MITRE source
CWE-322Key Exchange without Entity Authentication
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
Performing a key exchange will preserve the integrity of the information sent between two entities, but this will not guarantee that the entities are who they claim they are. This may enable an attacker to impersonate an actor by modifying traffic between the two entities. Typically, this involves a victim client that contacts a malicious server that is impersonating a trusted server. If the client skips authentication or ignores an authentication failure, the malicious server may request authentication information from the user. The malicious server can then use this authentication information to log in to the trusted server using the victim's credentials, sniff traffic between the victim and trusted server, etc.
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 3 framework(s): OWASP-Web 2 (mostly) · ASVS 5.0 1 (mostly) · ATT&CK 1 (mostly)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
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-2026-1709 UPD | 7.0 | 9.4 | 0.0575 | 2026-02-06 |
CVE-2021-34433 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0034 | 2021-08-20 |
CVE-2022-39246 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0063 | 2022-09-28 |
CVE-2022-39248 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0072 | 2022-09-28 |
CVE-2022-39249 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0095 | 2022-09-28 |
CVE-2022-39251 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0087 | 2022-09-28 |
CVE-2022-39255 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0072 | 2022-09-28 |
CVE-2022-39257 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0072 | 2022-09-28 |
CVE-2022-39250 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0094 | 2022-09-29 |
CVE-2022-39252 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0049 | 2022-09-29 |
CVE-2022-39254 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0056 | 2022-09-29 |
CVE-2024-6572 | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0034 | 2024-09-09 |
CVE-2024-7516 | 5.5 | 7.1 | 0.0024 | 2024-11-12 |
CVE-2024-47519 | 5.5 | 8.3 | 0.0033 | 2025-01-10 |
CVE-2025-20163 UPD | 5.5 | 8.7 | 0.0037 | 2025-06-04 |
CVE-2025-62501 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0046 | 2026-02-03 |
CVE-2026-33697 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0006 | 2026-03-27 |
CVE-2025-13914 | 5.5 | 8.7 | 0.0028 | 2026-04-09 |
CVE-2026-45361 UPD | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0059 | 2026-05-25 |
CVE-2024-4871 | 3.5 | 6.8 | 0.0061 | 2024-05-14 |
CVE-2025-54422 UPD | 3.5 | 5.5 | 0.0007 | 2025-07-29 |
CVE-2026-1354 | 3.5 | 6.4 | 0.0013 | 2026-04-21 |
CVE-2026-44467 UPD | 3.5 | 6.8 | 0.0014 | 2026-05-13 |