CWE-1292 Base Draft

Incorrect Conversion of Security Identifiers

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware system incorrectly translates security identifiers during bus protocol conversion. An improper mapping allows untrusted agents to bypass security checks and…

Definition

What is CWE-1292?

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware system incorrectly translates security identifiers during bus protocol conversion. An improper mapping allows untrusted agents to bypass security checks and gain unauthorized access to protected assets or functions.
In a System-on-Chip (SoC), different hardware components communicate via transactions that include security identifiers. These identifiers act like permissions, telling the receiving component what actions the sender is allowed to perform, such as reading or writing to a memory region. When a leader agent (e.g., using AHB protocol) needs to talk to a follower agent (e.g., using OCP protocol), a bridge performs a protocol conversion. If this bridge incorrectly maps or drops the security identifiers during translation, the transaction's permissions can be elevated or misrepresented. This flawed conversion creates a critical security gap. An untrusted or lower-privileged agent can send a transaction that, after incorrect translation, appears to have higher privileges than intended. The destination agent then grants unauthorized access based on this faulty security context, potentially leading to data exposure, corruption, or unauthorized control of hardware functions. The core issue is a mismatch between the intended security policy and its implementation in the protocol bridge.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-1292

No public CVE references are linked to this CWE in MITRE's catalog yet.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

  1. 1

    Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.

  2. 2

    Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.

  3. 3

    Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.

  4. 4

    Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable Other

Consider a system that supports AHB. Let us assume we have a follower agent that only understands OCP. To connect this follower to the leader, a bridge is introduced, i.e., AHB to OCP. The follower has assets to protect accesses from untrusted leaders, and it employs access controls based on policy, (e.g., AES-Key registers for encryption or decryption). The key is 128 bits implemented as a set of four 32-bit registers. The key registers are assets, and register AES_KEY_ACCESS_POLICY is defined to provide the necessary access controls. The AES_KEY_ACCESS_POLICY access-policy register defines which agents with a security identifier in the transaction can access the AES-key registers. The implemented AES_KEY_ACCESS_POLICY has 4 bits where each bit when "Set" allows access to the AES-Key registers to the corresponding agent that has the security identifier. The other bits from 31 through 4 are reserved and not used. | | | | Register | Field Description | | AES_ENC_DEC_KEY_0 | AES key [0:31] for encryption or decryption Default 0x00000000 | | AES_ENC_DEC_KEY_1 | AES key [32:63] for encryption or decryption Default 0x00000000 | | AES_ENC_DEC_KEY_2 | AES key [64:95] for encryption or decryption Default 0x00000000 | | AES_ENC_DEC_KEY_3 | AES key [96:127] for encryption or decryption Default 0x00000000 | | AES_KEY_ACCESS_POLICY | [31:4] Default 0x000000 [3:0] - 0x02 agent with Security Identifier "1" has access to AES_ENC_DEC_KEY_0 through AES_ENC_DEC_KEY_4 registers | During conversion of the AHB-to-OCP transaction, the security identifier information must be preserved and passed on to the follower correctly.

Vulnerable Other 
In AHB-to-OCP bridge, the security identifier information conversion is done incorrectly.
Secure code example

Secure Other

Because of the incorrect conversion, the security identifier information is either lost or could be modified in such a way that an untrusted leader can access the AES-Key registers.

Secure Other 
The conversion of the signals from one protocol (AHB) to another (OCP) must be done while preserving the security identifier correctly.
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Prevention checklist

How to prevent CWE-1292

  • Architecture and Design Security identifier decoders must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.
  • Implementation Access and programming flows must be tested in pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-1292

SAST High

Run static analysis (SAST) on the codebase looking for the unsafe pattern in the data flow.

DAST Moderate

Run dynamic application security testing against the live endpoint.

Runtime Moderate

Watch runtime logs for unusual exception traces, malformed input, or authorization bypass attempts.

Code review Moderate

Code review: flag any new code that handles input from this surface without using the validated framework helpers.

Plexicus auto-fix

Plexicus auto-detects CWE-1292 and opens a fix PR in under 60 seconds.

Codex Remedium scans every commit, identifies this exact weakness, and ships a reviewer-ready pull request with the patch. No tickets. No hand-offs.

Get a demo Try Plexicus free
Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-1292?

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware system incorrectly translates security identifiers during bus protocol conversion. An improper mapping allows untrusted agents to bypass security checks and gain unauthorized access to protected assets or functions.

How serious is CWE-1292?

MITRE has not published a likelihood-of-exploit rating for this weakness. Treat it as medium-impact until your threat model proves otherwise.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-1292?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Not OS-Specific, Not Architecture-Specific, Bus/Interface Hardware, Not Technology-Specific.

How can I prevent CWE-1292?

Security identifier decoders must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses. Access and programming flows must be tested in pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-1292?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-1292 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.

Where can I learn more about CWE-1292?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1292.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-1292

CWE-284 Parent

Improper Access Control

The software fails to properly limit who can access a resource, allowing unauthorized users or systems to interact with it.

CWE-1191 Sibling

On-Chip Debug and Test Interface With Improper Access Control

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware chip's debug or test interface (like JTAG) lacks proper access controls. Without correct…

CWE-1220 Sibling

Insufficient Granularity of Access Control

This vulnerability occurs when a system's access controls are too broad, allowing unauthorized users or processes to read or modify…

CWE-1224 Sibling

Improper Restriction of Write-Once Bit Fields

This vulnerability occurs when hardware write-once protection mechanisms, often called 'sticky bits,' are incorrectly implemented,…

CWE-1231 Sibling

Improper Prevention of Lock Bit Modification

This vulnerability occurs when hardware or firmware uses a lock bit to protect critical system registers or memory regions, but fails to…

CWE-1233 Sibling

Security-Sensitive Hardware Controls with Missing Lock Bit Protection

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware device uses a lock bit to protect critical configuration registers, but the lock fails to…

CWE-1252 Sibling

CPU Hardware Not Configured to Support Exclusivity of Write and Execute Operations

This vulnerability occurs when a CPU's hardware is not set up to enforce a strict separation between writing data to memory and executing…

CWE-1257 Sibling

Improper Access Control Applied to Mirrored or Aliased Memory Regions

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware design maps the same physical memory to multiple addresses (aliasing or mirroring) but fails to…

CWE-1259 Sibling

Improper Restriction of Security Token Assignment

This vulnerability occurs when a System-on-a-Chip (SoC) fails to properly secure its Security Token mechanism. These tokens control which…

Resources

Further reading

Ready when you are

Don't Let Security
Weigh You Down.

Stop choosing between AI velocity and security debt. Plexicus is the only platform that runs Vibe Coding Security and ASPM in parallel — one workflow, every codebase.