64% of CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024) you already have
FedRAMP Rev 5 already covers about 64% of CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024), leaving
9 of 25 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 16
New work 9
No control in FedRAMP Rev 5
maps directly to one in CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses (2024). Everything counted as covered is covered because both
map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather
than a lookup.
What is genuinely new work
Nothing in FedRAMP Rev 5 reaches these. This is the list to scope.
CWE-119Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read
CWE-190Integer Overflow or Wraparound
CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference
CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data
CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write
CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)
Show the 16 you already have
CWE-20Improper Input Validation
CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal)
CWE-269Improper Privilege Management
CWE-287Improper Authentication
CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function
CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CWE-434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command (Command Injection)
CWE-78Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command (OS Command Injection)
CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (Cross-site Scripting)
CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials
CWE-862Missing Authorization
CWE-863Incorrect Authorization
CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command (SQL Injection)
CWE-94Improper Control of Generation of Code (Code Injection)
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in FedRAMP Rev 5 to that control. Likely
covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third
standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one
friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified
fact.
Coverage is not symmetric.
Run it the other way and you will get a
different number; both are correct.
From 332,959 cross-framework control
mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against
their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means
the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.
Try another pair ยท
Today's edition