CWE-353 Base Draft Medium likelihood

Missing Support for Integrity Check

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses a communication protocol that lacks built-in integrity verification, such as a checksum or cryptographic hash, to detect if data has been altered or…

Definition

What is CWE-353?

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses a communication protocol that lacks built-in integrity verification, such as a checksum or cryptographic hash, to detect if data has been altered or corrupted during transmission.
When a protocol doesn't include integrity checks like checksums, there's no reliable way for the receiving end to know if the data arrived exactly as it was sent. Corruption from network errors, hardware faults, or even malicious tampering can go undetected. This missing layer of validation means corrupted data is passed directly to the application, which must then bear the full responsibility for detecting these errors—if it can at all. The principle of end-to-end integrity argues that verification should happen at the lowest protocol layer where it can be fully implemented. A protocol-level checksum is the most effective guard because it validates an entire message or session, not just individual network packets. While applications should still perform their own input validation, relying solely on that is riskier and less efficient than having the underlying communication channel guarantee data integrity from the start.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-353

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 Java

In this example, a request packet is received, and privileged information is sent to the requester:

Vulnerable Java 
while(true) {
  	DatagramPacket rp = new DatagramPacket(rData,rData.length);
  	outSock.receive(rp);
  	InetAddress IPAddress = rp.getAddress();
  	int port = rp.getPort();
  	out = secret.getBytes();
  	DatagramPacket sp =new DatagramPacket(out, out.length, IPAddress, port);
  	outSock.send(sp);
  }
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-353

  • Architecture and Design Add an appropriately sized checksum to the protocol, ensuring that data received may be simply validated before it is parsed and used.
  • Implementation Ensure that the checksums present in the protocol design are properly implemented and added to each message before it is sent.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-353

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-353 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-353?

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses a communication protocol that lacks built-in integrity verification, such as a checksum or cryptographic hash, to detect if data has been altered or corrupted during transmission.

How serious is CWE-353?

MITRE rates the likelihood of exploit as Medium — exploitation is realistic but typically requires specific conditions.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-353?

MITRE has not specified affected platforms for this CWE — it can apply across most application stacks.

How can I prevent CWE-353?

Add an appropriately sized checksum to the protocol, ensuring that data received may be simply validated before it is parsed and used. Ensure that the checksums present in the protocol design are properly implemented and added to each message before it is sent.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-353?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-353 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-353?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/353.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-353

CWE-345 Parent

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…

CWE-1293 Sibling

Missing Source Correlation of Multiple Independent Data

This vulnerability occurs when a system trusts a single source of data without verification, making it impossible to detect if that source…

CWE-346 Sibling

Origin Validation Error

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly confirm the true origin of incoming data or communication, allowing…

CWE-347 Sibling

Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly check the digital signature on data, or skips the verification step…

CWE-348 Sibling

Use of Less Trusted Source

This vulnerability occurs when a system has access to multiple sources for the same critical data, but it chooses to rely on the less…

CWE-349 Sibling

Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data

This vulnerability occurs when a system processes both trusted and untrusted data together, but fails to separate them. The application…

CWE-351 Sibling

Insufficient Type Distinction

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly differentiate between different types of data or objects, leading to…

CWE-352 Sibling

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) happens when a web application cannot reliably tell if a user actually intended to submit a request,…

CWE-354 Sibling

Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to properly check the integrity of data by validating its checksum or hash value. Without…

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.