Threadlinqs IntelligenceStart free

Weakness · BaseCWE-798

CWE-798: Use of Hard-coded Credentials

Likelihood of exploit: HighKEV-linkedBase

As of 2026-10-05, CWE-798 (Use of Hard-coded Credentials) underlies 14 CVEs tracked by Threadlinqs, 4 of them in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and is cited by 137 tracked threats. MITRE rates its likelihood of exploit as High.

CVEs
14Mapped to CWE-798
CISA KEV
4Exploited in the wild
Critical
8CVSS v3 critical CVEs
Threats
137Tracked campaigns citing it
Likelihood
HighMITRE likelihood of exploit

Last updated:

What is CWE-798?

The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.

There are two main variations: Inbound: the product contains an authentication mechanism that checks the input credentials against a hard-coded set of credentials. In this variant, a default administration account is created, and a simple password is hard-coded into the product and associated with that account. This hard-coded password is the same for each installation of the product, and it usually cannot be changed or disabled by system administrators without manually modifying the program, or otherwise patching the product. It can also be difficult for the administrator to detect. Outbound: the product connects to another system or component, and it contains hard-coded credentials for connecting to that component. This variant applies to front-end systems that authenticate with a back-end service. The back-end service may require a fixed password that can be easily discovered. The programmer may simply hard-code those back-end credentials into the front-end product.

CWE-798 is a base-level weakness in MITRE’s Common Weakness Enumeration, with a MITRE likelihood of exploit of High. Applicable platforms: Language: Not Language-Specific; Technology: Mobile; Technology: ICS/OT.

Source: MITRE CWE (CWE-798 definition, reproduced verbatim). Counts and linkage below are Threadlinqs data.

Consequences

  • Access Control — Bypass Protection Mechanism. If hard-coded passwords are used, it is almost certain that malicious users will gain access to the account in question. Any user of the product that hard-codes passwords may be able to extract the password. Client-side systems with hard-coded passwords pose even more of a threat, since the extraction of a password from a binary is usually very simple.
  • Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability, Access Control, Other — Read Application Data, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Other. This weakness can lead to the exposure of resources or functionality to unintended actors, possibly providing attackers with sensitive information or even execute arbitrary code. If the password is ever discovered or published (a common occurrence on the Internet), then anybody with knowledge of this password can access the product. Finally, since all installations of the product will have the same password, even across different organizations, this enables massive attacks such as worms to take…

Source: MITRE CWE, common consequences.

How CWE-798 is exploited in the wild

Threadlinqs maps 14 CVEs to CWE-798, published between 2023-12-05 and 2026-09-05. 4 are listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative record of exploitation in the wild. By CVSS v3 severity the set splits into 8 critical, 3 high, 2 medium. The highest EPSS score in the set is 94.2% (CVE-2024-28987), the modelled probability of exploitation in the next 30 days. 137 tracked threats reference CWE-798 directly or through a CVE it covers; the most recent is “Snowflake customer-account extortion campaign (UNC5537): Canadian suspect Connor Riley Moucka pleads guilty” (2026-10-04). Affected products concentrate in Solarwinds (4), ASUS (1), Cisco (1), among 10 vendors in total.

Vulnerabilities (CVEs)

All 14 CVEs mapped to CWE-798, CISA KEV first, then by CVSS score.

  • CVE-2026-22769 — CISA KEV · CVSS 10 critical · EPSS 20.0% · published 2026-02-17
  • CVE-2025-14611 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 53.3% · published 2025-12-12
  • CVE-2023-6448 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 13.2% · published 2023-12-05
  • CVE-2024-28987 — CISA KEV · CVSS 9.1 critical · EPSS 94.2% · published 2024-08-21
  • CVE-2025-20309 — CVSS 10 critical · EPSS 1.1% · published 2025-07-02
  • CVE-2025-63823 — CVSS 9.8 critical · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-08-05
  • CVE-2026-73519 — CVSS 9.8 critical · published 2026-08-12
  • CVE-2026-67568 — CVSS 9.1 critical · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-08-11
  • CVE-2024-23473 — CVSS 8.6 high · EPSS 0.1% · published 2024-05-14
  • CVE-2025-40537 — CVSS 7.5 high · EPSS 0.0% · published 2026-01-28
  • CVE-2026-85451 — CVSS 7.1 high · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-03
  • CVE-2024-28990 — CVSS 6.3 medium · EPSS 0.0% · published 2024-09-12
  • CVE-2026-86150 — CVSS 4.1 medium · EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-05
  • CVE-2026-75754 — EPSS 0.2% · published 2026-09-04

Affected vendors

Threat activity

137 tracked threats cite CWE-798; the 25 most recent are listed.

Mitigations

  • Architecture and Design: For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320). If you cannot use encryption to protect the file, then make sure that the permissions are as restrictive as possible [REF-7]. In Windows environments, the Encrypted File System (EFS) may provide some protection.
  • Architecture and Design: For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password, key, or other authentication credentials for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password or key.
  • Architecture and Design: If the product must contain hard-coded credentials or they cannot be removed, perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded credentials. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
  • Architecture and Design: For inbound authentication using passwords: apply strong one-way hashes to passwords and store those hashes in a configuration file or database with appropriate access control. That way, theft of the file/database still requires the attacker to try to crack the password. When handling an incoming password during authentication, take the hash of the password and compare it to the saved hash. Use randomly assigned salts for each separate hash that is generated. This increases the amount of computation that an attacker needs to conduct a brute-force attack, possibly limiting the effectiveness of the rainbow table method.
  • Architecture and Design: For front-end to back-end connections: Three solutions are possible, although none are complete. The first suggestion involves the use of generated passwords or keys that are changed automatically and must be entered at given time intervals by a system administrator. These passwords will be held in memory and only be valid for the time intervals. Next, the passwords or keys should be limited at the back end to only performing actions valid for the front end, as opposed to having full access. Finally, the messages sent should be tagged and checksummed with time sensitive values so as to prevent replay-style attacks.

Source: MITRE CWE, potential mitigations.

Detection methods (MITRE CWE)

  • Black Box (effectiveness: Moderate): Credential storage in configuration files is findable using black box methods, but the use of hard-coded credentials for an incoming authentication routine typically involves an account that is not visible outside of the code.
  • Automated Static Analysis: Automated white box techniques have been published for detecting hard-coded credentials for incoming authentication, but there is some expert disagreement regarding their effectiveness and applicability to a broad range of methods.
  • Manual Static Analysis: This weakness may be detectable using manual code analysis. Unless authentication is decentralized and applied throughout the product, there can be sufficient time for the analyst to find incoming authentication routines and examine the program logic looking for usage of hard-coded credentials. Configuration files could also be analyzed.
  • Manual Dynamic Analysis: For hard-coded credentials in incoming authentication: use monitoring tools that examine the product's process as it interacts with the operating system and the network. This technique is useful in cases when source code is unavailable, if the product was not developed by you, or if you want to verify that the build phase did not introduce any new weaknesses. Examples include debuggers that directly attach to the running process; system-call tracing utilities such as truss (Solaris) and strace…
  • 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 Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
  • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
  • 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: Network Sniffer Forced Path Execution
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code (effectiveness: High): According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

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