MITRE has released its 2025 Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses list, revealing the root causes behind 39,080 Common Vulnerability and Exposure (CVE) records this year. These prevalent flaws enable attackers to seize system control, steal sensitive data, or cripple applications. Organizations must prioritize remediation of these weaknesses to protect their digital assets and maintain security posture in an increasingly hostile threat landscape.
Executive Summary: 2025 MITRE CWE Top 25
The 2025 MITRE CWE Top 25 list serves as a critical roadmap for security professionals, developers, and executives seeking to understand and remediate the most dangerous software weaknesses affecting modern applications and systems. Based on real-world vulnerability data from the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), this annual ranking highlights security flaws that are not only prevalent but also frequently exploited in the wild.
This year’s list reveals significant trends in the evolving threat landscape. Cross-site scripting (XSS) maintains its position at the top despite dropping from last year’s lead, while injection flaws and memory corruption vulnerabilities continue to dominate. The emergence of four new entries—including Classic Buffer Overflow, Stack-based Buffer Overflow, Heap-based Buffer Overflow, and Improper Access Control—signals growing concerns about memory safety and authorization gaps in both modern and legacy codebases.
The presence of 113 Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEVs) across the top 25 underscores the urgent need for organizations to prioritize remediation efforts. Weaknesses like OS Command Injection (20 KEVs), Use After Free (14 KEVs), and Out-of-bounds Write (12 KEVs) represent immediate threats that attackers are actively exploiting in real-world campaigns.
Complete MITRE CWE Top 25 List for 2025
| 2025 Rank | CWE ID & Name | KEV Count | 2024 Rank | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (Cross-site Scripting) | 7 | 1 | — |
| 2 | CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (SQL Injection) | 4 | 3 | ↑1 |
| 3 | CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) | 0 | 4 | ↑1 |
| 4 | CWE-862: Missing Authorization | 0 | 9 | ↑5 |
| 5 | CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write | 12 | 2 | ↓3 |
| 6 | CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) | 10 | 5 | ↓1 |
| 7 | CWE-416: Use After Free | 14 | 8 | ↑1 |
| 8 | CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read | 3 | 6 | ↓2 |
| 9 | CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (OS Command Injection) | 20 | 7 | ↓2 |
| 10 | CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection) | 7 | 11 | ↑1 |
| 11 | CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input (Classic Buffer Overflow) | 0 | — | NEW |
| 12 | CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type | 4 | 10 | ↓2 |
| 13 | CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference | 0 | 21 | ↑8 |
| 14 | CWE-121: Stack-based Buffer Overflow | 4 | — | NEW |
| 15 | CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data | 11 | 16 | ↑1 |
| 16 | CWE-122: Heap-based Buffer Overflow | 6 | — | NEW |
| 17 | CWE-863: Incorrect Authorization | 4 | 18 | ↑1 |
| 18 | CWE-20: Improper Input Validation | 2 | 12 | ↓6 |
| 19 | CWE-284: Improper Access Control | 1 | — | NEW |
| 20 | CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor | 1 | 17 | ↓3 |
| 21 | CWE-306: Missing Authentication for Critical Function | 11 | 25 | ↑4 |
| 22 | CWE-918: Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) | 0 | 19 | ↓3 |
| 23 | CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (Command Injection) | 2 | 13 | ↓10 |
| 24 | CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key | 0 | 30 | ↑6 |
| 25 | CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling | 0 | 26 | ↑1 |
Critical Vulnerability Categories and Analysis
Injection Vulnerabilities: The Persistent Threat
Injection flaws continue to dominate the MITRE Top 25, with multiple injection-related weaknesses appearing in the top rankings. These vulnerabilities occur when untrusted data is sent to an interpreter as part of a command or query, allowing attackers to execute unintended commands or access unauthorized data.
| Injection Type | 2025 Rank | KEV Count | Primary Impact | Common Attack Vectors |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-site Scripting (XSS) | 1 | 7 | Client-side code execution, session hijacking, defacement | Stored XSS in user profiles, reflected XSS in search parameters, DOM-based XSS in JavaScript |
| SQL Injection | 2 | 4 | Data breach, authentication bypass, database destruction | Login forms, search queries, URL parameters, cookie manipulation |
| OS Command Injection | 9 | 20 | Remote code execution, system compromise, data exfiltration | File upload functions, system utilities, network diagnostic tools |
| Code Injection | 10 | 7 | Arbitrary code execution, complete system takeover | Eval functions, template engines, dynamic code generation |
| Command Injection | 23 | 2 | Command execution, privilege escalation | Shell commands, system calls, subprocess execution |
Why Injection Flaws Remain #1
Despite decades of security awareness and numerous defensive frameworks, injection vulnerabilities persist due to several factors: the continued use of legacy code without proper sanitization, rapid development cycles that deprioritize security, insufficient developer security training, complex application architectures with multiple input points, and the evolution of new injection vectors in modern frameworks and languages. Organizations must implement defense-in-depth strategies including input validation, parameterized queries, output encoding, and regular security testing to combat these persistent threats.
Memory Safety Issues: The Growing Concern
The 2025 list features a striking increase in memory-related vulnerabilities, with four buffer overflow variants now represented. This trend reflects both the enduring challenges of memory-unsafe languages like C and C++, and increased scrutiny of legacy codebases as organizations modernize their infrastructure.
| Memory Weakness | 2025 Rank | KEV Count | Typical Consequences | Vulnerable Components |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use After Free | 7 | 14 | Code execution, information disclosure, denial of service | Browsers, media players, OS kernels, device drivers |
| Out-of-bounds Write | 5 | 12 | Buffer overflow, code execution, data corruption | String handling, array operations, memory copying functions |
| Out-of-bounds Read | 8 | 3 | Information disclosure, application crash, memory corruption | Image parsers, file readers, network protocol handlers |
| Classic Buffer Overflow | 11 | 0 | Remote code execution, privilege escalation | Legacy applications, embedded systems, network services |
| Stack-based Buffer Overflow | 14 | 4 | Control flow hijacking, code execution | C/C++ applications, system utilities, network protocols |
| Heap-based Buffer Overflow | 16 | 6 | Memory corruption, arbitrary code execution | Dynamic memory allocation, object instantiation, complex data structures |
| NULL Pointer Dereference | 13 | 0 | Application crash, denial of service, potential code execution | Error handling paths, uninitialized variables, race conditions |
The Move Toward Memory-Safe Languages
The prominence of memory safety issues in the MITRE Top 25 has accelerated industry momentum toward memory-safe languages. Major technology organizations are increasingly adopting Rust, Go, and modern C++ practices (with smart pointers and bounds checking) for new development. The US government, through agencies like CISA and NSA, has published guidance recommending memory-safe languages for critical infrastructure. However, billions of lines of legacy C and C++ code remain in production, requiring organizations to balance modernization efforts with comprehensive security testing, fuzzing, and runtime protection mechanisms for existing systems.
Authorization and Authentication Failures
Access control weaknesses saw significant movement in the 2025 rankings, with Missing Authorization jumping five positions to rank #4. This category of vulnerabilities reflects fundamental flaws in how applications verify user permissions and enforce security boundaries.
| Access Control Weakness | 2025 Rank | Change from 2024 | Security Impact | Exploitation Scenarios |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missing Authorization | 4 | ↑5 | Unauthorized data access, privilege escalation, API abuse | Direct object references, API endpoint enumeration, horizontal privilege escalation |
| Incorrect Authorization | 17 | ↑1 | Improper permission checks, unauthorized actions | Role confusion, permission inheritance flaws, context-dependent access bypasses |
| Improper Access Control | 19 | NEW | Unrestricted resource access, information disclosure | Directory traversal, unrestricted file access, configuration exposure |
| Missing Authentication | 21 | ↑4 | Complete authentication bypass, unauthorized system access | Unauthenticated admin panels, API without authentication, default credentials |
| Authorization Bypass | 24 | ↑6 | Security control evasion, unauthorized operations | Parameter manipulation, cookie tampering, session fixation |
Web Application Weaknesses
Web applications continue to be prime targets for attackers, with several web-specific vulnerabilities maintaining strong positions in the Top 25.
| Web Vulnerability | 2025 Rank | KEV Count | Attack Methods | Defensive Measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) | 1 | 7 | Stored, reflected, and DOM-based injection | Content Security Policy, output encoding, input validation, sanitization libraries |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) | 3 | 0 | Forged requests leveraging authenticated sessions | CSRF tokens, SameSite cookies, custom headers, double-submit patterns |
| Path Traversal | 6 | 10 | Directory navigation using ../ sequences | Input whitelist validation, chroot jails, secure file APIs, path normalization |
| Unrestricted File Upload | 12 | 4 | Malicious file upload with execution | File type validation, content inspection, separate storage domains, execution prevention |
| Server-Side Request Forgery | 22 | 0 | Internal resource access via manipulated requests | URL whitelist validation, network segmentation, metadata service protection |
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities: The Immediate Threat
The presence of 113 Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEVs) across the Top 25 list represents clear and present danger. These are not theoretical weaknesses—they are actively being weaponized by threat actors in real-world attacks.
| KEV Priority Level | CWE Weaknesses | Total KEVs | Recommended Response Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical (10+ KEVs) | OS Command Injection (20), Use After Free (14), Out-of-bounds Write (12), Missing Authentication (11), Deserialization (11) | 68 | Immediate patching within 24-48 hours; emergency change control |
| High (5-9 KEVs) | XSS (7), Code Injection (7), Heap Buffer Overflow (6) | 20 | Patching within 7 days; prioritized remediation |
| Medium (1-4 KEVs) | SQL Injection (4), Unrestricted Upload (4), Stack Buffer Overflow (4), Incorrect Authorization (4), Out-of-bounds Read (3) | 25 | Standard patch cycle (30 days); heightened monitoring |
| Watch List (0 KEVs) | CSRF, Missing Authorization, Classic Buffer Overflow, NULL Pointer, SSRF, Authorization Bypass, Resource Allocation | 0 | Normal remediation timeline; proactive testing and hardening |
CISA KEV Catalog Implications
Organizations subject to US federal mandates, government contractors, and critical infrastructure operators must prioritize remediation of vulnerabilities listed in CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog. The high concentration of KEVs in the MITRE Top 25 means that addressing these weakness categories should be a top priority for all organizations, not just those with regulatory obligations. Threat actors actively exploit these vulnerabilities because they work—they provide reliable attack vectors against a wide range of targets. Delaying remediation of KEV-related weaknesses dramatically increases organizational risk.
Trend Analysis: Shifts in the 2025 Rankings
Notable Movers
| Weakness | Movement | Significance | Contributing Factors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Missing Authorization | ↑5 positions (9→4) | Largest climb in top 10 | Cloud API proliferation, microservices architectures, serverless computing increasing authorization complexity |
| NULL Pointer Dereference | ↑8 positions (21→13) | Highest overall climb | Increased fuzzing and static analysis discovering more instances in production code |
| Authorization Bypass | ↑6 positions (30→24) | Re-entering awareness | Focus on zero-trust architectures highlighting authorization weaknesses |
| Command Injection | ↓10 positions (13→23) | Largest decline | Better developer awareness, framework protections, containerization limiting impact |
| Improper Input Validation | ↓6 positions (12→18) | Significant drop | Increased adoption of input validation frameworks and schema validation |
New Entries for 2025
Four new weaknesses entered the Top 25 this year, displacing existing entries and signaling evolving threat priorities:
Why New Entries Matter
- Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120): The return of this fundamental weakness to the list suggests renewed attention to legacy code security, possibly driven by supply chain concerns and critical infrastructure assessments.
- Stack-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-121): With 4 KEVs, this specific buffer overflow variant highlights ongoing exploitation of stack memory corruption in both legacy and modern applications.
- Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122): Featuring 6 KEVs, heap corruption vulnerabilities remain attractive targets for sophisticated attackers seeking persistent exploitation.
- Improper Access Control (CWE-284): This broad access control category entering the list reflects systemic authorization problems across modern application architectures.
Remediation Strategies and Best Practices
Development Lifecycle Integration
Addressing MITRE Top 25 weaknesses requires integrating security throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC), not bolting it on as an afterthought.
| SDLC Phase | Security Activities | CWE Focus Areas | Tools and Techniques |
|---|---|---|---|
| Requirements | Security requirements definition, threat modeling | Authorization patterns, input handling, authentication mechanisms | STRIDE modeling, abuse cases, security user stories |
| Design | Security architecture review, control selection | Access control models, injection prevention, memory safety | Architecture diagrams, security design patterns, control frameworks |
| Implementation | Secure coding practices, code review | All Top 25 weaknesses | IDE plugins, linters, secure coding standards, peer review |
| Testing | Security testing, vulnerability scanning | Injection flaws, authorization bypasses, memory issues | SAST, DAST, IAST, fuzzing, penetration testing |
| Deployment | Hardening, configuration review | Authentication, access control, resource limits | Configuration scanners, security benchmarks, hardening guides |
| Operations | Monitoring, incident response, patching | KEV-associated weaknesses, known attack patterns | SIEM, IDS/IPS, WAF, vulnerability management systems |
Priority Remediation Framework
Organizations should adopt a risk-based approach to addressing MITRE Top 25 weaknesses, prioritizing efforts based on multiple factors.
Prioritization Criteria
- KEV Presence: Vulnerabilities with known exploitation take absolute priority. Address OS Command Injection (20 KEVs), Use After Free (14 KEVs), and Out-of-bounds Write (12 KEVs) first.
- CVSS Scoring: Within each CWE category, prioritize vulnerabilities with higher CVSS scores indicating greater potential impact.
- Asset Criticality: Weaknesses in internet-facing applications, critical infrastructure, or systems processing sensitive data require accelerated remediation.
- Exploit Availability: Public exploit code or active scanning attempts warrant immediate attention regardless of other factors.
- Compensating Controls: Where immediate patching is impossible, implement WAF rules, network segmentation, or enhanced monitoring as interim measures.
Technology-Specific Guidance
| Technology Stack | Primary Weakness Concerns | Recommended Security Controls |
|---|---|---|
| Web Applications (PHP, Python, Ruby, Node.js) | XSS, SQL Injection, CSRF, Path Traversal, File Upload | Web Application Firewall, parameterized queries, output encoding, CSRF tokens, Content Security Policy |
| Native Applications (C/C++) | Buffer Overflows, Use After Free, Out-of-bounds operations | Memory-safe alternatives, bounds checking, AddressSanitizer, fuzzing, secure coding training |
| Java Applications | Deserialization, SQL Injection, XXE, Authorization flaws | Secure deserialization libraries, prepared statements, XML external entity prevention, Spring Security |
| APIs (REST/GraphQL) | Missing Authorization, Missing Authentication, SSRF, Injection | API gateway with authentication, rate limiting, schema validation, API security testing |
| Cloud-Native (Containers, Serverless) | Authorization bypasses, Deserialization, OS Command Injection | IAM policies, container security scanning, function timeout limits, least privilege execution |
Organizational Response Strategy
Immediate Actions
30-Day Action Plan
- Days 1-7: Assessment
- Inventory all applications and systems in your environment
- Identify which MITRE Top 25 weaknesses are present in your codebase
- Prioritize systems based on criticality and exposure
- Review CISA KEV catalog for immediate threats
- Days 8-14: Emergency Remediation
- Patch all KEV-associated vulnerabilities in internet-facing systems
- Implement compensating controls where patching is not immediately possible
- Enable enhanced monitoring for attack indicators
- Update WAF rules to block common exploitation attempts
- Days 15-21: Process Enhancement
- Update secure coding standards to address Top 25 weaknesses
- Configure SAST/DAST tools to detect CWE patterns
- Schedule developer security training
- Establish vulnerability disclosure and patching SLAs
- Days 22-30: Long-term Planning
- Develop remediation roadmap for identified weaknesses
- Assess technology stack for memory-safe alternatives
- Plan regular security assessments focused on Top 25
- Establish metrics for tracking remediation progress
Continuous Improvement
Addressing MITRE Top 25 weaknesses is not a one-time project but an ongoing commitment to security excellence.
Sustainable Security Practices
- Regular Training: Conduct quarterly secure coding workshops focused on MITRE Top 25 patterns and prevention techniques
- Automated Detection: Integrate CWE-aware security testing into CI/CD pipelines to catch vulnerabilities before production
- Metrics and KPIs: Track mean time to remediation, vulnerability density, and security debt by weakness category
- Vendor Management: Require third-party vendors and open-source components to demonstrate CWE Top 25 compliance
- Bug Bounty Programs: Incentivize external researchers to identify Top 25 weaknesses in your applications
- Annual Review: Reassess your security posture against each new MITRE Top 25 release and adjust priorities accordingly
Conclusion: Taking Action on the MITRE Top 25
The 2025 MITRE CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses list represents more than just an academic exercise—it’s a data-driven roadmap to the vulnerabilities that matter most in the real world. With 39,080 CVE records analyzed and 113 known exploited vulnerabilities identified across these weakness categories, organizations have clear guidance on where to focus their security investments.
The persistence of injection flaws at the top of the list demonstrates that despite decades of security awareness, fundamental security practices still require improvement across the industry. The emergence of multiple memory safety weaknesses highlights the ongoing challenges of maintaining secure legacy code while also underscoring the importance of transitioning to memory-safe languages for new development.
Authorization and authentication failures climbing the rankings reflect the growing complexity of modern distributed systems, microservices architectures, and cloud-native applications. As systems become more interconnected and APIs proliferate, proper access control implementation becomes simultaneously more critical and more challenging.
Organizations must approach MITRE Top 25 remediation as a continuous process, integrating security throughout the software development lifecycle, investing in developer education, deploying automated security testing, and maintaining rigorous vulnerability management practices. The presence of known exploited vulnerabilities across these weakness categories makes clear that attackers are actively weaponizing these flaws—delayed remediation is not an option.