In application security, two references appear particularly often: the OWASP Top 10 and the CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses. Both lists are frequently mentioned in security guidelines, training materials, and penetration testing reports and aim to highlight common security problems in software.
At first glance, both lists appear to describe the same thing: common weaknesses in software. In reality, they follow different approaches. While the OWASP Top 10 describes security risks in web applications, the CWE Top 25 lists concrete technical weaknesses in software in general.
The OWASP Top 10
The OWASP Top 10 is published by the Open Web Application Security Project and describes the most significant security risks for web applications.
Well-known categories include:
- Broken Access Control
- Cryptographic Failures
- Injection
- Security Misconfiguration
The categories are intentionally formulated at a relatively high level. They describe risk areas in web applications that arise from common weaknesses, potential attack vectors, and their resulting impact.
The OWASP Top 10 clearly focuses on web applications and web-based architectures. Many of its categories reflect typical problems found in modern web applications.
For this reason, the list is often used as a reference for web application security. Many organizations rely on it for secure development guidelines or security awareness training.
However, it is important to note that the OWASP Top 10 is not a testing methodology. It describes risks rather than specific testing procedures or technical checks.
The CWE Top 25
The Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) is maintained by MITRE and represents a comprehensive classification system for software weaknesses.
From this collection, the list of CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses is regularly derived.
Unlike the OWASP Top 10, the CWE Top 25 describes concrete technical weakness classes in code, for example:
- Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787)
- Use After Free (CWE-416)
- Improper Input Validation (CWE-20)
Many of these weaknesses originate directly in the code and often affect memory-unsafe programming languages or low-level system software.
In contrast to the OWASP Top 10, the CWE classification is not limited to web applications. It describes weaknesses in software in general and can therefore be applied to web applications, desktop software, system software, or embedded systems.
Risk vs. Technical Cause
The most important difference between the two lists lies in their level of abstraction.
The OWASP Top 10 describes security risks in web applications.
The CWE Top 25 describes concrete weaknesses in software code.
An OWASP category can therefore include several underlying weaknesses.
A simple example illustrates this relationship.
The risk category Injection can arise from different technical causes, such as insufficient input validation or insecure database queries. These causes can in turn be mapped to specific CWE identifiers.
OWASP therefore answers the question:
Which security risks occur most frequently in web applications?
The CWE classification, in contrast, addresses:
Which specific coding errors lead to these problems?
Comparison of OWASP Top 10 and CWE Top 25
There is no direct one-to-one mapping between the two lists. However, typical relationships can be illustrated. The following table shows a simplified comparison of commonly related issues.
| OWASP Category | Typical Related CWE Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Broken Access Control | CWE-284 Improper Access Control, CWE-862 Missing Authorization |
| Cryptographic Failures | CWE-327 Broken or Risky Crypto Algorithm, CWE-326 Inadequate Encryption Strength |
| Injection | CWE-89 SQL Injection, CWE-77 Command Injection, CWE-20 Improper Input Validation |
| Insecure Design | CWE-840 Business Logic Errors, CWE-602 Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security |
| Security Misconfiguration | CWE-16 Configuration Errors |
| Vulnerable and Outdated Components | often indirectly via known CVEs with underlying CWEs |
| Identification and Authentication Failures | CWE-287 Improper Authentication, CWE-522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials |
| Software and Data Integrity Failures | CWE-494 Download of Code Without Integrity Check |
| Security Logging and Monitoring Failures | CWE-778 Insufficient Logging |
| Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) | CWE-918 Server-Side Request Forgery |
At the same time, the CWE Top 25 includes several weaknesses that cannot be directly mapped to OWASP categories. These include classical memory-related issues such as:
- CWE-787 Out-of-bounds Write
- CWE-416 Use After Free
- CWE-125 Out-of-bounds Read
- CWE-190 Integer Overflow
Such weaknesses typically occur in system-level software rather than in typical web applications.
Relevance for Penetration Testing
For penetration testing, the OWASP Top 10 is a frequently used reference. The list highlights major security risks that are typically considered when testing web applications.
Some penetration testing reports structure their findings according to OWASP categories. More commonly, however, the categories are used to contextualize vulnerabilities or communicate risks.
The CWE classification often plays a complementary role in penetration testing. It helps to technically classify discovered vulnerabilities more precisely. Many vulnerability reports therefore include the corresponding CWE identifier.
A typical mapping may look like this:
OWASP risk
→ concrete vulnerability
→ corresponding CWE ID
Example:
Broken Access Control
→ missing authorization check
→ CWE-284 Improper Access Control
Such a mapping can facilitate both risk communication with stakeholders and the technical classification of a vulnerability. In practice, however, it is often performed only upon customer request. The actual added value of an additional classification usually remains limited.
