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: 14 October 2026 22:30 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 · 4 mapping(s) from 4 framework(s): STIG windows 10 1 (full) · STIG windows server 2016 1 (mostly) · STIG windows server 2019 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 PROPOSED for this weakness (0)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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2024-4995 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0092 | 2024-12-18 |
CVE-2026-72887 UPD | 7.4 | 9.8 | 0.0072 | 2026-08-16 |
CVE-2026-72889 UPD | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0045 | 2026-08-19 |
CVE-2019-14887 UPD | 7.1 | 9.1 | 0.0109 | 2020-03-16 |
CVE-2025-24154 UPD | 7.1 | 9.1 | 0.0117 | 2025-01-27 |
CVE-2024-38883 UPD | 6.8 | 9.1 | 0.0035 | 2024-08-02 |
CVE-2026-18691 UPD | 6.5 | 8.8 | 0.0036 | 2026-08-11 |
CVE-2026-89177 | 6.5 | 8.8 | 0.0036 | 2026-09-11 |
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 | 5.8 | 7.5 | 0.0034 | 2026-04-17 |
CVE-2026-55953 UPD | 5.5 | 7.4 | 0.0023 | 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 | 0.0122 | 2021-11-30 |
CVE-2019-16791 UPD | 5.2 | 6.9 | 0.0086 | 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 | 0.0051 | 2026-03-13 |
CVE-2026-59293 | 4.9 | 6.6 | 0.0024 | 2026-08-27 |
CVE-2020-10135 UPD | 4.8 | 5.4 | 0.0237 | 2020-05-19 |
CVE-2026-4942 UPD | 4.7 | 5.9 | 0.0043 | 2026-07-17 |
CVE-2026-54291 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 0.0024 | 2026-07-06 |