CWE · MITRE source
CWE-916Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort
The product generates a hash for a password, but it uses a scheme that does not provide a sufficient level of computational effort that would make password cracking attacks infeasible or expensive.
Many password storage mechanisms compute a hash and store the hash, instead of storing the original password in plaintext. In this design, authentication involves accepting an incoming password, computing its hash, and comparing it to the stored hash. Many hash algorithms are designed to execute quickly with minimal overhead, even cryptographic hashes. However, this efficiency is a problem for password storage, because it can reduce an attacker's workload for brute-force password cracking. If an attacker can obtain the hashes through some other method (such as SQL injection on a database that stores hashes), then the attacker can store the hashes offline and use various techniques to crack the passwords by computing hashes efficiently. Without a built-in workload, modern attacks can compute large numbers of hashes, or even exhaust the entire space of all possible passwords, within a very short amount of time, using massively-parallel computing (such as cloud computing) and GPU, ASIC, or FPGA hardware. In such a scenario, an efficient hash algorithm helps the attacker. There are several properties of a hash scheme that are relevant to its strength against an offline, massively-parallel attack: Note that the security requirements for the product may vary depending on the environment and the value of the passwords. Different schemes might not provide all of these properties, yet may still provide sufficient security for the environment. Conversely, a solution might be very strong in preserving one property, which still being very weak for an attack against another property, or it might not be able to significantly reduce the efficiency of a massively-parallel attack.
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: full · 5 mapping(s) from 4 framework(s): ATT&CK 2 (mostly) · ASVS 5.0 1 (full) · OWASP-Web 1 (full) · CAPEC 1 (partial)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A04:2025 Cryptographic Failures.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (1)AI
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
AT-5 | Contacts with Security Groups and Associations | AT | Information from security contacts highlights password hashing methods with insufficient computational effort, preventing their adoption. |
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-2001-0967 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0095 | 2001-08-31 |
CVE-2005-0408 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0474 | 2005-02-14 |
CVE-2018-10618 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.1012 | 2018-08-01 |
CVE-2018-15680 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0079 | 2018-09-05 |
CVE-2018-15681 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0075 | 2018-09-05 |
CVE-2019-6563 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0173 | 2019-03-05 |
CVE-2019-17216 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0075 | 2019-10-06 |
CVE-2019-19735 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0077 | 2019-12-30 |
CVE-2020-14516 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 0.0410 | 2021-03-18 |
CVE-2021-32519 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0085 | 2021-07-07 |
CVE-2021-36767 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0066 | 2021-10-08 |
CVE-2022-37163 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0047 | 2022-09-08 |
CVE-2022-37164 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0056 | 2022-09-08 |
CVE-2023-46133 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0045 | 2023-10-25 |
CVE-2023-46233 UPD | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0063 | 2023-10-25 |
CVE-2024-5743 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0036 | 2025-01-13 |
CVE-2026-30789 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0027 | 2026-03-05 |
CVE-2026-30790 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0022 | 2026-03-05 |
CVE-2026-45787 UPD | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0010 | 2026-05-28 |
CVE-2021-38314 | 6.0 | 5.3 | 0.2896 | 2021-09-02 |
CVE-2002-1657 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0127 | 2002-12-31 |
CVE-2008-1526 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0089 | 2008-03-26 |
CVE-2018-9233 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0174 | 2018-04-05 |
CVE-2019-0030 | 5.5 | 7.2 | 0.0053 | 2019-01-15 |
CVE-2019-3907 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0068 | 2019-01-18 |