Threadlinqs IntelligenceStart free

Weakness · ClassCWE-200

CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Likelihood of exploit: HighKEV-linkedClass

As of 2026-10-05, CWE-200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor) underlies 42 CVEs tracked by Threadlinqs, 1 of them in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and is cited by 97 tracked threats. MITRE rates its likelihood of exploit as High.

CVEs
42Mapped to CWE-200
CISA KEV
1Exploited in the wild
Critical
4CVSS v3 critical CVEs
Threats
97Tracked campaigns citing it
Likelihood
HighMITRE likelihood of exploit

Last updated:

What is CWE-200?

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

There are many different kinds of mistakes that introduce information exposures. The severity of the error can range widely, depending on the context in which the product operates, the type of sensitive information that is revealed, and the benefits it may provide to an attacker. Some kinds of sensitive information include: private, personal information, such as personal messages, financial data, health records, geographic location, or contact details system status and environment, such as the operating system and installed packages business secrets and intellectual property network status and configuration the product's own code or internal state metadata, e.g. logging of connections or message headers indirect information, such as a discrepancy between two internal operations that can be observed by an outsider Information might be sensitive to different parties, each of which may have their own expectations for whether the information should be protected. These parties include: the product's own users people or organizations whose information is created or used by the product, even if they are not direct product users the product's administrators, including the admins of the system(s) and/or networks on which the product operates the developer Information exposures can occur in different ways: the code explicitly inserts sensitive information into resources or messages that are intentionally made accessible to unauthorized actors, but should not contain the information - i.e., the information should have been "scrubbed" or "sanitized" a different weakness or mistake indirectly inserts the sensitive information into resources, such as a web script error revealing the full system path of the program. the code manages resources that intentionally contain sensitive information, but the resources are unintentionally made accessible to unauthorized actors. In this case, the information exposure is resultant - i.e., a different weakness enabled the access to the information in the first place. It is common practice to describe any loss of confidentiality as an "information exposure," but this can lead to overuse of CWE-200 in CWE mapping. From the CWE perspective, loss of confidentiality is a technical impact that can arise from dozens of different weaknesses, such as insecure file permissions or out-of-bounds read. CWE-200 and its lower-level descendants are intended to cover the mistakes that occur in behaviors that explicitly manage, store, transfer, or…

CWE-200 is a class-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration, with a MITRE likelihood of exploit of High. Applicable platforms: Language: Not Language-Specific; Technology: Not Technology-Specific; Technology: Web Based; Technology: Mobile.

Source: MITRE CWE (CWE-200 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data.

Consequences

  • Confidentiality — Read Application Data

Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences.

How CWE-200 is exploited in the wild

Threadlinqs maps 42 CVEs to CWE-200, published between 2024-08-12 and 2026-10-03. 1 is listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative record of exploitation in the wild. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 4 critical, 11 high, 18 medium, 2 low. The highest EPSS score in the set is 74.7% (CVE-2025-30208), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 97 tracked threats reference CWE-200 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “Multiple Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Edge prior to 154.0.4258.53 (HK GovCERT A26-10-03)” (2026-10-02). Affected products concentrate in koxudaxi (3), Capgo (2), FOSSBilling (2), among 33 vendors in total.

Vulnerabilities (CVEs)

Showing 40 of 42 CVEs mapped to CWE-200, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.

Affected vendors

Threat activity

97 tracked threats cite CWE-200; the 25 most recent are listed.

Mitigations

  • Architecture and Design / Separation of Privilege: Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area. Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.

Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations.

Detection methods (MITRE CWE)

  • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Inter-application Flow Analysis
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation (effectiveness: SOAR Partial): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer Automated Monitored Execution Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
  • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer Cost effective for partial coverage: Source code Weakness Analyzer
  • Architecture or Design Review (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Attack Modeling Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

Source: MITRE CWE, detection methods. Threadlinqs detection rules for the threats above are Blue tier and higher.