CWE · MITRE source
CWE-648Incorrect Use of Privileged APIs
The product does not conform to the API requirements for a function call that requires extra privileges. This could allow attackers to gain privileges by causing the function to be called incorrectly.
When a product contains certain functions that perform operations requiring an elevated level of privilege, the caller of a privileged API must be careful to: If the caller of the API does not follow these requirements, then it may allow a malicious user or process to elevate their privilege, hijack the process, or steal sensitive data. For instance, it is important to know if privileged APIs do not shed their privileges before returning to the caller or if the privileged function might make certain assumptions about the data, context or state information passed to it by the caller. It is important to always know when and how privileged APIs can be called in order to ensure that their elevated level of privilege cannot be exploited.
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: partial · 3 mapping(s) from 2 framework(s): ATT&CK 2 (partial) · CAPEC 1 (partial)
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-2026-20122 KEV | 10.0 | 5.4 | 0.0702 | 2026-02-25 |
CVE-2019-1010178 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0459 | 2019-07-24 |
CVE-2019-14813 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.1140 | 2019-09-06 |
CVE-2022-2023 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0297 | 2022-06-20 |
CVE-2023-29507 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0090 | 2023-04-16 |
CVE-2023-4972 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0057 | 2023-09-14 |
CVE-2024-37018 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0043 | 2024-05-31 |
CVE-2024-11068 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0117 | 2024-11-11 |
CVE-2024-8785 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0950 | 2024-12-02 |
CVE-2025-2311 UPD | 7.0 | 9.0 | 0.0016 | 2025-03-20 |
CVE-2026-41329 | 7.0 | 9.9 | 0.0030 | 2026-04-21 |
CVE-2026-41386 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0033 | 2026-04-28 |
CVE-2026-41225 UPD | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0027 | 2026-05-13 |
CVE-2019-3839 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0176 | 2019-05-16 |
CVE-2019-14811 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0376 | 2019-09-03 |
CVE-2019-14817 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0203 | 2019-09-03 |
CVE-2019-14869 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0343 | 2019-11-15 |
CVE-2019-10216 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0230 | 2019-11-27 |
CVE-2019-14812 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0247 | 2019-11-27 |
CVE-2020-5291 | 5.5 | 7.2 | 0.0091 | 2020-03-31 |
CVE-2020-7927 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0103 | 2020-11-23 |
CVE-2022-24073 | 5.5 | 7.1 | 0.0056 | 2022-03-17 |
CVE-2022-23720 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0024 | 2022-06-30 |
CVE-2022-20956 | 5.5 | 7.1 | 0.0132 | 2022-11-04 |
CVE-2022-4687 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0063 | 2022-12-23 |