The code performs a comparison between two entities, but the comparison examines the wrong factors or characteristics of the entities, which can lead to incorrect results and resultant weaknesses.
View on MITREThis can lead to incorrect results and resultant weaknesses. For example, the code might inadvertently compare references to objects, instead of the relevant contents of those objects, causing two "equal" objects to be considered unequal.
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
Thoroughly test the comparison scheme before deploying code into production. Perform positive testing as well as negative testing.
In the example below, two Java String objects are declared and initialized with the same string values. An if statement is used to determine if the strings are equivalent.
However, the if statement will not be executed as the strings are compared using the "==" operator. For Java objects, such as String objects, the "==" operator compares object references, not object values. While the two String objects above contain the same string values, they refer to different object references, so the System.out.println statement will not be executed. To compare object values, the previous code could be modified to use the equals method:
String str1 = new String("Hello");String str2 = new String("Hello");if (str1 == str2) {System.out.println("str1 == str2");}In the example below, two Java String objects are declared and initialized with the same string values. An if statement is used to determine if the strings are equivalent.
However, the if statement will not be executed as the strings are compared using the "==" operator. For Java objects, such as String objects, the "==" operator compares object references, not object values. While the two String objects above contain the same string values, they refer to different object references, so the System.out.println statement will not be executed. To compare object values, the previous code could be modified to use the equals method:
if (str1.equals(str2)) {System.out.println("str1 equals str2");}Additional facts reviewed against primary or authoritative security sources.
Documented detection approaches include Manual Static Analysis; recorded impacts include Varies by Context; related weaknesses include CWE-697. Use these source-defined anchors to turn CWE-1025 into implementation, review, and verification checks for the affected component.
CWE-1025: Comparison Using Wrong Factors — MITRE CWEUse NIST SSDF practices to make prevention of CWE-1025, Comparison Using Wrong Factors, an explicit development outcome. Translate the CWE definition into security requirements and design constraints, choose safer implementation patterns and toolchain checks, and define acceptance evidence before release. Feed every confirmed occurrence back into the requirements, design review, and coding rules so the same root cause is removed across the product rather than patched in one location.
NIST SP 800-218 Secure Software Development Framework — National Institute of Standards and TechnologyUse CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog to test whether a vulnerability mapped to CWE-1025, Comparison Using Wrong Factors, has evidence of exploitation in the wild. Confirm the CVE-to-CWE root-cause mapping independently before attaching the example, then capture the affected product, required action, and remediation deadline. A missing KEV match is not evidence that the weakness is unexploited, and a KEV entry must not be generalized to every occurrence of this CWE.
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog — Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security AgencyApply MITRE's full root-cause mapping guidance when using CWE-1025, Comparison Using Wrong Factors. Separate weakness language from attacker prerequisites and technical impact, check the entry's abstraction and vulnerability-mapping notes, and prefer the most specific Base or Variant supported by the evidence. Record the rejected alternatives and require an independent review before the mapping is used for remediation trends or program metrics.
CVE to CWE Root Cause Mapping Guidance — MITRE CWEApply MITRE's root-cause mapping quick tips to CWE-1025, Comparison Using Wrong Factors. Confirm the finding describes the causal weakness rather than an impact or attack pattern, compare the abstraction and mapping notes with plausible alternatives, and have a second reviewer challenge the selection. Preserve the evidence and reasoning so recurring defects can be measured against one consistent identifier.
CVE to CWE Root Cause Mapping Quick Tips — MITRE CWECWE-1025: Comparison Using Wrong Factors is a Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entry maintained by MITRE. The code performs a comparison between two entities, but the comparison examines the wrong factors or characteristics of the entities, which can lead to incorrect results and resultant weaknesses.
If exploited, CWE-1025 (Comparison Using Wrong Factors) it can compromise Other, leading to outcomes such as Varies by Context.
CWE-1025 can be detected using Manual Static Analysis. Combining automated tooling with manual review typically yields the best coverage.
CWE-1025 commonly affects Not Language-Specific. Note that weaknesses are often language-agnostic patterns, so secure coding practices apply broadly.
A CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) like CWE-1025 describes a category of software weakness — the underlying flaw type. A CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) identifies a specific, real-world vulnerability in a particular product. In short, a CWE is the kind of mistake, and a CVE is an instance of that mistake being found in software.