What is Cryptographic Failure?
Cryptographic failures are vulnerabilities that occur when applications poorly implement or use cryptography, leading to the exposure of sensitive data. They are caused by issues such as using weak or outdated algorithms, poor key management, and incorrect protocol configurations, and are a major concern because they can result in data breaches, identity theft, and financial loss.
Common causes of cryptographic failures include:
Weak or outdated algorithms: Using algorithms that are known to be weak or have been deprecated (like MD5 for passwords) makes them easy to compromise.
Poor key management: Failing to generate, store, distribute, or use cryptographic keys securely is a major cause. Examples include hardcoding keys in source code.
Insecure data transmission: Not encrypting data in transit, such as using HTTP instead of HTTPS, makes it visible to anyone with network access.
Implementation errors: Mistakes in coding or integrating cryptographic libraries can lead to vulnerabilities, such as using insecure random number generation.
Misconfigurations: Inappropriate cryptographic settings can reduce the effectiveness of security controls.
This is part of a series of articles about application security.
In this article:
Cryptographic failures can lead to serious consequences, ranging from data breaches to loss of trust and legal exposure. The impact often depends on the nature of the data and the scope of the failure:
- Unauthorized data access: Attackers can decrypt sensitive information, including passwords, personal data, or proprietary business content, leading to privacy violations or intellectual property theft.
- Man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks: Broken or misconfigured encryption can allow attackers to intercept and manipulate data in transit.
- Loss of data integrity: Without proper cryptographic validation, data can be altered without detection.
- Bypassing authentication mechanisms: Weak or flawed cryptographic routines can be exploited to forge authentication tokens, impersonate users, or escalate privileges.
- Compliance and legal issues: Organizations may face regulatory penalties if encryption is required by standards (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS) and is improperly implemented or fails.
- Reputational damage: Exposure of encrypted data due to cryptographic failure can erode customer trust and damage brand credibility, especially if sensitive user information is involved.
- Operational disruption: Attacks exploiting cryptographic flaws can disable critical services or compromise systems that rely on secure communication and verification.
Weak or Outdated Algorithms
Using weak or outdated cryptographic algorithms remains a common source of failure in security architectures. Algorithms such as MD5, SHA-1, and RC4 have well-documented vulnerabilities that attackers are able to exploit using affordable computational resources. Reliance on these legacy algorithms provides only limited protection and exposes data to known attacks that have been practical for years.
Organizations must recognize that cryptographic strength degrades over time as more research uncovers weaknesses and as computational power increases. Without a deliberate strategy to review and update cryptographic algorithms in deployed systems, what was once “secure” can become obsolete.
Poor Key Management
Ineffective key management is a persistent cause of cryptographic failure. If encryption keys are improperly generated, stored, distributed, or rotated, even strong cryptographic algorithms become useless. Hardcoding keys in source code, sharing them via unencrypted channels—or failing to retire keys after employee turnover or compromise events—all introduce avoidable risk and weaken system security.
Key lifecycle management should cover the secure generation of random keys, their distribution over protected channels, safe storage using hardware security modules (HSMs) or equivalent technologies, and enforced rotation policies. Lapses in any of these practices open the door to key leakage or misuse, often enabling attackers to decrypt or forge sensitive data without needing to break the underlying encryption itself.
Insecure Data Transmission
Transporting sensitive data without proper encryption exposes it to interception and tampering. Plaintext transmission over HTTP, unencrypted email, or legacy protocols lacking end-to-end security enables attackers to capture credentials, personally identifiable information, or confidential documents as they travel across the network. This risk multiplies in environments with untrusted networks or where attackers can monitor traffic.
Even protocols that claim to offer encryption, such as SSL or early versions of TLS, may be insecure if misconfigured or outdated. Strong data-in-transit protections require the latest versions of secure protocols, proper certificate management, and enforcement of communication only over encrypted channels. Failure at any stage of the data transmission path leaves organizations open to interception attacks like sniffing, replay, or man-in-the-middle.
Implementation Errors
Many cryptographic failures stem from errors introduced during development. Incorrect use of APIs, misunderstanding threat models, skipping vital steps like verification of cryptographic parameters, or custom-building cryptographic modules without deep expertise create numerous failure points. This also includes logic flaws such as misuse of encryption modes, hardcoded IVs (initialization vectors), or insecure random number generation.
Implementation mistakes often bypass even well-designed cryptographic systems, rendering them ineffective in real-world use. Careful adherence to established libraries and avoidance of “homegrown” solutions are essential, but so is continuous review, test coverage, and integration of static analysis tools specifically targeting cryptographic misuse.
Misconfigurations
Misconfiguration of cryptographic settings can easily undermine otherwise strong security controls. Common issues include accepting self-signed or invalid certificates, enabling deprecated protocol versions, using weak cipher suites, or improperly setting up trust stores in software and network equipment. These mistakes frequently create attack paths that allow downgrade attacks, stripping away encryption entirely or reverting to exploitable algorithms.
Configuration management for cryptographic systems demands careful documentation, automation, and monitoring. Security teams should leverage configuration validation tools, automate deployment of hardened settings, and monitor environments for drift from established secure baselines.
Jeremie Ohayon
Jeremie Ohayon is a Senior Product Manager at Radware with 20 years of experience in application security and cybersecurity. Jeremie holds a Master's degree in Telecommunications, and has an abiding passion for technology and a deep understanding of the cybersecurity industry. Jeremie thrives on human exchanges and strives for excellence in a multicultural environment to create innovative cybersecurity solutions.
Tips from the Expert:
In my experience, here are tips that can help you better prevent and detect cryptographic failures in modern application environments:
1. Monitor for entropy starvation in real-world systems: Production systems (especially VMs, containers, and IoT devices) may lack sufficient entropy at boot or under load, resulting in weak keys or predictable RNG outputs. Continuously monitor entropy pools and use tools like haveged or hardware RNGs to supplement where needed.
2. Tokenize and segment cryptographic operations in microservices: Instead of embedding crypto routines in each microservice, centralize them in hardened services with strict API contracts. This limits exposure, ensures consistency, and makes it easier to audit encryption usage across distributed systems.
3. Adopt crypto-agility through abstraction layers: Implement cryptographic abstractions that decouple business logic from algorithm choice (e.g., through providers or policy files). This allows the organization to upgrade ciphers or protocols system-wide without touching application code, essential for post-quantum or future deprecations.
4. Fingerprint and continuously scan TLS endpoints across the org: Attackers inventory the external surface; defenders should too. Regularly fingerprint and scan internal and external endpoints for TLS versions, cipher suites, and certificate chains. Tools like
testssl.sh, sslyze, or commercial scanners can catch drift or misconfiguration fast.
5. Log failed and deprecated TLS handshakes for early warnings: Don’t just block old TLS versions; log attempted connections using them. These can indicate old clients, misconfigured integrations, or early-stage probes by attackers. Monitor trends over time to guide client migration and threat detection.
Broken Password Hashing and Credential Leaks
Broken password hashing occurs when systems use fast or outdated hash functions that were not designed to resist offline attacks. Algorithms such as MD5 or unsalted SHA-1 allow attackers to test large numbers of candidate passwords quickly once a hash database is obtained. The failure is not in the breach itself, but in the inability of the hashing design to slow or prevent password recovery after exposure.
Examples:
- A consumer forum stores user passwords using unsalted SHA-1, allowing an attacker to recover millions of passwords within hours after a database leak.
- An internal HR portal hashes passwords with MD5, enabling attackers to reuse recovered credentials to access employee email accounts.
- A SaaS platform migrates users from a legacy system but keeps the original weak hashes, exposing accounts during a later breach.
Misconfigured TLS Leading to Downgrade or MitM Attacks
TLS failures often stem from configuration choices rather than broken cryptographic algorithms. Allowing obsolete protocol versions or weak cipher suites gives attackers room to interfere with connection negotiation. Once encryption is weakened or bypassed, traffic confidentiality and integrity can no longer be assumed.
Examples:
- A public API supports TLS 1.0 for legacy clients, allowing an attacker to force a downgrade and intercept authentication tokens.
- A mobile application disables certificate validation in production, enabling a man-in-the-middle attacker on public Wi-Fi.
- An enterprise web server enables EXPORT-grade ciphers, exposing encrypted sessions to practical decryption attacks.
Insecure Database Encryption Workflows
Database encryption failures occur when encryption is applied inconsistently or without proper key separation. Encrypting data without protecting key material provides only superficial protection. Attackers who gain system access often find that encryption adds little resistance to data extraction.
Examples:
- A customer database encrypts credit card numbers, but stores the encryption key in the same configuration file as the database credentials.
- An analytics platform encrypts backups but leaves live database tables unencrypted and accessible through a compromised application account.
- A backend service uses application-level encryption but allows broad access to decryption functions through exposed internal APIs.
Side-Channel Attacks in Software and Hardware
Side-channel attacks exploit information leaked through system behavior rather than cryptographic flaws. Timing differences, memory access patterns, or physical emissions can reveal secrets when implementations depend on sensitive data. These failures are difficult to detect because the cryptographic algorithms themselves remain mathematically sound.
Examples:
- A web server leaks private key bits through measurable timing differences in RSA operations.
- An embedded device reveals encryption keys through power consumption patterns during repeated cryptographic operations.
- A cloud workload exposes secret-dependent cache behavior that can be observed by a co-located virtual machine.
Backdoored or Compromised Random Number Generators
Cryptographic systems depend on unpredictable randomness for key generation and protocol security. Weak or manipulated random number generators produce values that attackers can guess or reproduce. Once randomness fails, encryption and authentication mechanisms lose their security guarantees.
Examples:
- A custom authentication system seeds its RNG with the current timestamp, allowing session tokens to be predicted.
- A VPN appliance relies on a weakened RNG implementation, enabling attackers to reconstruct encryption keys.
- An embedded system generates cryptographic keys at boot using insufficient entropy before hardware randomness becomes available.
Here are some of the ways that organizations can ensure they avoid cryptographic failures.
1. Use Only Modern, Well-Vetted Cryptographic Algorithms
Security professionals should mandate the use of current and widely accepted cryptographic algorithms, such as AES for encryption and SHA-256 or stronger for hashing. Algorithms that have withstood significant public scrutiny and analysis provide the best assurance against future attacks, as opposed to proprietary or outdated ciphers. Avoiding deprecated or experimental algorithms is critical to maintaining the integrity of protected data.
Implementing modern cryptography also means remaining alert to new vulnerabilities and participating in established deprecation cycles. As new standards or recommendations emerge, such as the adoption of post-quantum cryptography, organizations must plan for regular updates and migration strategies.
2. Enforce Robust Key Lifecycle Management
Effective key management covers every stage of the key’s lifecycle: generation, storage, distribution, rotation, usage, and destruction. Keys should be generated using true or cryptographically secure random sources, stored in protected environments like HSMs, and distributed only over encrypted channels to trusted parties.
Regular rotation and timely destruction of old or potentially exposed keys reduce risk and contain the impact of key compromise. Monitoring and access control are also vital. Limit key access to only those roles that require it, and enforce multi-factor authentication for key operations where feasible. Automating these processes through key management services (KMS) or centralized policy engines reduces the likelihood of human error.
3. Implement Secure Communication Protocols Everywhere
All data transmissions involving sensitive information must use secure transport protocols, such as modern versions of TLS with strong cipher suites and strict certificate validation. Avoid legacy alternatives or permitting insecure downgrades, as these create clear paths for traffic interception or active manipulation. End-to-end encryption should be enforced even over trusted networks to counteract possible internal threats.
Systematic deployment requires configuration management, regular protocol reviews, and automated certificate renewal to prevent accidental lapses. Whenever possible, enable security features like HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) and certificate pinning.
4. Maintain Strict Library and Dependency Hygiene
Security weaknesses frequently emerge from outdated cryptographic libraries, misused APIs, or insecure third-party components. Adopting a policy of regular updates, prompt patching, and close tracking of changes in cryptographic dependencies is essential to prevent exposure to known vulnerabilities. Tools like software composition analysis and automated dependency tracking help identify and report issues before they are exploitable.
Teams should only rely on thoroughly reviewed libraries with a strong reputation and community support. Avoid creating custom cryptographic code, as such solutions are notoriously prone to subtle and devastating flaws. Regular scanning of the software stack, along with a disciplined patch management process, limits the attack surface.
5. Automate Encryption and Configuration Checks
Automation is key to ensuring consistent, error-free cryptography across complex environments. Configuration-as-code, automated policy enforcement, and continuous scanning for misconfigurations help identify and remediate weaknesses before they can be exploited. Integrating cryptographic health checks into CI/CD pipelines can catch accidental regressions or non-compliance issues early in the software development lifecycle.
Encrypting sensitive assets such as databases, storage volumes, and backups should be a default operation managed by automation, not manual processes. Security teams should leverage tools that provide real-time monitoring, alerting, and self-healing for cryptographic controls so that deviations from policy or best practices trigger immediate responses.
6. Perform Periodic Audits, Threat Modeling, and Crypto Reviews
Routine security audits that specifically assess cryptographic controls are essential for identifying gaps in protection before they lead to incidents. This involves regular external and internal penetration testing, vulnerability scanning, and review of code and infrastructure for adherence to cryptographic policies. Documentation of these processes strengthens compliance evidence and supports continuous improvement.
Threat modeling should include cryptographic assets, considering potential attackers, abuse cases, and failure modes related to cryptography. Periodic reviews by independent experts or penetration testers who specialize in cryptographic systems provide an external perspective and often catch issues missed by internal teams. Committing to a schedule of periodic review keeps cryptographic controls current and tuned to the evolving threat landscape.
Cryptographic failures often stem from weak configurations, outdated protocols, insecure data handling, or inconsistent enforcement across complex environments. Preventing these issues requires more than selecting modern algorithms—it also requires ensuring encryption is consistently applied, certificates are managed correctly, and insecure downgrade paths or misconfigurations are eliminated. Radware helps organizations reduce cryptographic risk by enforcing secure transport controls at the application edge, improving visibility into encryption-related issues, and protecting web applications and APIs from exploitation attempts that leverage weak crypto implementations.
Radware Alteon Application Delivery Controller (ADC) plays a central role in strengthening TLS hygiene by enabling centralized SSL/TLS offloading, policy enforcement, and certificate lifecycle control. By standardizing TLS versions and cipher suite settings at the edge, Alteon helps prevent insecure downgrade scenarios and reduces exposure to inconsistent encryption across backend services. It also simplifies enterprise-wide enforcement of security policies such as disabling legacy protocols and ensuring strong cryptographic configurations across distributed application environments.
For web-exposed applications and APIs, Radware Cloud WAF Service and Cloud Application Protection Service help mitigate risks linked to implementation flaws and misconfigurations that attackers exploit, such as insecure session handling, weak authentication workflows, or overly verbose error outputs. These services can also support “virtual patching” when cryptographic libraries or application components require urgent remediation. To improve detection and response, Cloud Network Analytics provides traffic visibility and anomaly detection that can help identify suspicious patterns consistent with downgrade attempts, MITM probing, or credential abuse. Together, these capabilities help organizations enforce stronger encryption practices and reduce the likelihood that cryptographic weaknesses will become exploitable security gaps.