CWE · MITRE source
CWE-757Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade')
A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties.
When a security mechanism can be forced to downgrade to use a less secure algorithm, this can make it easier for attackers to compromise the product by exploiting weaker algorithm. The victim might not be aware that the less secure algorithm is being used. For example, if an attacker can force a communications channel to use cleartext instead of strongly-encrypted data, then the attacker could read the channel by sniffing, instead of going through extra effort of trying to decrypt the data using brute force techniques.
Last updated: 22 August 2026 14:14 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 · 9 mapping(s) from 7 framework(s): CAPEC 3 (partial) · STIG windows 10 1 (full) · STIG windows 11 1 (mostly) · STIG windows server 2016 1 (mostly) · STIG windows server 2019 1 (mostly) · STIG windows server 2022 1 (mostly) · ATT&CK 1 (partial)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures.
Control responseHuman-reviewed
Answering this weakness across the control lifecycle, from our framework cross-walks.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI-assisted
| 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).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2024-4995 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0093 | 2024-12-18 |
CVE-2026-72887 | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0055 | 2026-08-16 |
CVE-2019-14887 UPD | 7.1 | 9.1 | 0.0109 | 2020-03-16 |
CVE-2025-24154 UPD | 7.1 | 9.1 | 0.0118 | 2025-01-27 |
CVE-2024-38883 UPD | 6.8 | 9.1 | 0.0035 | 2024-08-02 |
CVE-2026-18691 | 6.4 | 8.8 | 0.0023 | 2026-08-11 |
CVE-2017-9269 UPD | 6.3 | 7.7 | 0.0225 | 2018-03-01 |
CVE-2018-25029 UPD | 6.2 | 8.1 | 0.0062 | 2022-02-04 |
CVE-2024-23656 UPD | 5.8 | 7.5 | 0.0043 | 2024-01-25 |
CVE-2026-32650 UPD | 5.7 | 7.5 | 0.0021 | 2026-04-17 |
CVE-2026-55953 UPD | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0021 | 2026-07-27 |
CVE-2017-9267 UPD | 5.4 | 6.5 | 0.0103 | 2018-03-02 |
CVE-2022-23000 UPD | 5.4 | 7.3 | 0.0019 | 2022-07-25 |
CVE-2021-36326 UPD | 5.3 | 6.5 | 0.0118 | 2021-11-30 |
CVE-2019-16791 UPD | 5.2 | 6.9 | 0.0078 | 2020-01-22 |
CVE-2020-16200 UPD | 5.2 | 6.5 | 0.0062 | 2020-09-18 |
CVE-2023-2974 UPD | 5.2 | 6.5 | 0.0088 | 2023-07-04 |
CVE-2024-20069 UPD | 5.2 | 6.5 | 0.0057 | 2024-06-03 |
CVE-2026-2673 UPD | 5.2 | 6.5 | 0.0043 | 2026-03-13 |
CVE-2020-10135 UPD | 4.8 | 5.4 | 0.0239 | 2020-05-19 |
CVE-2026-54291 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 0.0020 | 2026-07-06 |
CVE-2026-4942 UPD | 4.5 | 5.9 | 0.0025 | 2026-07-17 |
CVE-2026-1677 UPD | 4.3 | 5.3 | 0.0024 | 2026-05-11 |
CVE-2026-6092 | 4.3 | 5.3 | 0.0021 | 2026-06-25 |
CVE-2026-48747 | 4.3 | 5.3 | 0.0020 | 2026-07-14 |