CWE · MITRE source
CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
Improper validation of checksums before use results in an unnecessary risk that can easily be mitigated. The protocol specification describes the algorithm used for calculating the checksum. It is then a simple matter of implementing the calculation and verifying that the calculated checksum and the received checksum match. Improper verification of the calculated checksum and the received checksum can lead to far greater consequences.
Last updated: 15 October 2026 20:36 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: full · 7 mapping(s) from 4 framework(s): STIG oracle linux 8 2 (full) · STIG rhel 7 2 (mostly) · STIG rhel 8 2 (mostly) · STIG oracle linux 9 1 (mostly)
Control responseHuman-reviewed
Answering this weakness across the control lifecycle, from our framework cross-walks.
RC.RP-03
- 10 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
V10.4.12
NIST 800-53 r5 controls PROPOSED for this weakness (5)AI-assisted
These are model PROPOSALS, not graded mappings. They come
from controls_to_cwe_proposals, which carries no grade field at
all; across the CWE pages 1,540 of 1,722 such associations (89%) have never
been graded by anything. The heading said “address” until
2026-09-29, which asserted a relationship the data does not carry.
Graded cross-walks are on the framework map, not here.
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
SI-7 | Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity | SI | graded full Requires use of proper integrity verification tools, reducing the chance an incorrect check value is accepted. |
SC-21 | Secure Name/Address Resolution Service (Recursive or Caching Resolver) | SC | Requires validation of integrity check values on every resolution response, directly mitigating tampered or corrupted DNS data. |
SC-33 | Transmission Preparation Integrity | SC | Control mandates proper validation of integrity values (checksums) on prepared data, making flawed validation of those checks ineffective for attackers. |
SA-18 | Tamper Resistance and Detection | SA | Proper validation of integrity check values is required for reliable tamper detection, directly reducing undetected modification risks. |
SR-9 | Tamper Resistance and Detection | SR | Requires proper validation of integrity mechanisms, directly mitigating flawed check-value handling. |
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2017-15994 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0100 | 2017-10-29 |
CVE-2024-3596 UPD | 7.4 | 9.0 | 0.1486 | 2024-07-09 |
CVE-2023-33668 UPD | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0052 | 2023-07-12 |
CVE-2023-48795 UPD | 7.3 | 5.9 | 0.9355 | 2023-12-18 |
CVE-2019-1166 UPD | 7.2 | 5.9 | 0.6811 | 2019-10-10 |
CVE-2024-25678 UPD | 7.2 | 9.8 | 0.0035 | 2024-02-09 |
CVE-2025-11543 UPD | 7.1 | 9.8 | 0.0020 | 2025-12-22 |
CVE-2026-34182 UPD | 7.1 | 9.1 | 0.0106 | 2026-06-09 |
CVE-2020-25758 UPD | 6.8 | 8.8 | 0.0125 | 2020-12-15 |
CVE-2026-49230 | 6.8 | 9.1 | 0.0030 | 2026-06-19 |
CVE-2025-54887 UPD | 6.7 | 9.1 | 0.0025 | 2025-08-08 |
CVE-2026-75803 UPD | 6.7 | 9.1 | 0.0023 | 2026-08-25 |
CVE-2026-92701 UPD | 6.7 | 9.1 | 0.0022 | 2026-09-18 |
CVE-2017-4961 UPD | 6.6 | 8.8 | 0.0048 | 2017-06-13 |
CVE-2020-7810 UPD | 6.5 | 8.8 | 0.0044 | 2020-08-07 |
CVE-2020-14120 UPD | 6.5 | 8.8 | 0.0042 | 2022-04-21 |
CVE-2022-29898 UPD | 6.5 | 9.1 | 0.0065 | 2022-05-11 |
CVE-2020-26896 UPD | 6.4 | 8.2 | 0.0074 | 2020-10-21 |
CVE-2026-76852 | 6.4 | 8.8 | 0.0027 | 2026-09-15 |
CVE-2019-13496 UPD | 6.3 | 8.1 | 0.0085 | 2019-11-04 |
CVE-2020-25862 UPD | 6.3 | 7.5 | 0.0235 | 2020-10-06 |
CVE-2026-12817 UPD | 6.3 | 8.6 | 0.0017 | 2026-08-03 |
CVE-2017-3760 UPD | 6.2 | 8.1 | 0.0078 | 2017-10-17 |
CVE-2022-25946 UPD | 6.2 | 8.7 | 0.0041 | 2022-05-05 |
CVE-2022-36174 UPD | 6.2 | 8.1 | 0.0052 | 2022-09-12 |