CWE-345 Class Draft

Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly check where data comes from or confirm its legitimacy, allowing untrusted or forged information to be processed as valid.

Definition

What is CWE-345?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly check where data comes from or confirm its legitimacy, allowing untrusted or forged information to be processed as valid.
Insufficient verification of data authenticity is a common root cause for security flaws like spoofing, CSRF, and replay attacks. It happens when developers trust data based solely on its apparent format or origin, without enforcing strong cryptographic signatures, secure tokens, or proper chain-of-trust validation. Attackers exploit this by tampering with requests, forging headers, or replaying captured data to impersonate users, bypass authorization, or trigger unauthorized actions. To prevent this, always cryptographically verify the source and integrity of critical data—such as session tokens, API requests, and file uploads—using standards like digital signatures, anti-CSRF tokens, and secure challenge-response mechanisms. Managing these validation checks consistently across a complex application landscape is challenging. An ASPM platform like Plexicus can automatically detect missing authenticity checks across your codebase and runtime, using AI to generate precise remediation guidance, ensuring your verification logic is robust and uniformly applied.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-345

  • CVE-2022-30260

    Distributed Control System (DCS) does not sign firmware images and only relies on insecure checksums for integrity checks

  • CVE-2022-30267

    Distributed Control System (DCS) does not sign firmware images and only relies on insecure checksums for integrity checks

  • CVE-2022-30272

    Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) does not use signatures for firmware images and relies on insecure checksums

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 pseudo

MITRE has not published a code example for this CWE. The pattern below is illustrative — see Resources for canonical references.

Vulnerable pseudo 
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Secure code example

Secure pseudo

Secure pseudo 
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
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-345

  • Architecture Use safe-by-default frameworks and APIs that prevent the unsafe pattern from being expressible.
  • Implementation Validate input at trust boundaries; use allowlists, not denylists.
  • Implementation Apply the principle of least privilege to credentials, file paths, and runtime permissions.
  • Testing Cover this weakness in CI: SAST rules + targeted unit tests for the data flow.
  • Operation Monitor logs for the runtime signals listed in the next section.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-345

Automated Static Analysis High

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Plexicus auto-fix

Plexicus auto-detects CWE-345 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-345?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly check where data comes from or confirm its legitimacy, allowing untrusted or forged information to be processed as valid.

How serious is CWE-345?

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-345?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: ICS/OT.

How can I prevent CWE-345?

Use safe-by-default frameworks, validate untrusted input at trust boundaries, and apply the principle of least privilege. Cover the data-flow signature in CI with SAST.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-345?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-345 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-345?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/345.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-345

CWE-693 Parent

Protection Mechanism Failure

This weakness occurs when software either lacks a necessary security control, implements one that is too weak, or fails to activate an…

CWE-1039 Sibling

Inadequate Detection or Handling of Adversarial Input Perturbations in Automated Recognition Mechanism

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses automated AI or machine learning to classify complex inputs like images, audio, or text, but…

CWE-1248 Sibling

Semiconductor Defects in Hardware Logic with Security-Sensitive Implications

A security-critical hardware component contains physical flaws in its semiconductor material, which can cause it to malfunction and…

CWE-1253 Sibling

Incorrect Selection of Fuse Values

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware security fuse is incorrectly programmed to represent a 'secure' state as logic 0 (unblown). An…

CWE-1269 Sibling

Product Released in Non-Release Configuration

This vulnerability occurs when a product ships to customers while still configured with its pre-production or manufacturing settings,…

CWE-1278 Sibling

Missing Protection Against Hardware Reverse Engineering Using Integrated Circuit (IC) Imaging Techniques

This vulnerability occurs when hardware lacks safeguards against physical inspection, allowing attackers to extract sensitive data by…

CWE-1291 Sibling

Public Key Re-Use for Signing both Debug and Production Code

This vulnerability occurs when the same cryptographic key is used to sign both development/debug software builds and final production…

CWE-1318 Sibling

Missing Support for Security Features in On-chip Fabrics or Buses

This vulnerability occurs when the communication channels (fabrics or buses) within a chip lack built-in or enabled security features,…

CWE-1319 Sibling

Improper Protection against Electromagnetic Fault Injection (EM-FI)

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware device lacks sufficient shielding against electromagnetic interference, allowing attackers to…

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.