Common Weakness Enumeration

A Community-Developed List of Software & Hardware Weakness Types

CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Weaknesses
Home > CWE List > CWE- Individual Dictionary Definition (4.2)  

CWE-1251: Mirrored Regions with Different Values

Weakness ID: 1251
Abstraction: Base
Structure: Simple
Status: Incomplete
Presentation Filter:
+ Description
The product's architecture mirrors regions without ensuring that their contents always stay in sync.
+ Extended Description

Having mirrored regions with different values might result in the exposure of sensitive information or possibly system compromise.

In the interest of increased performance, one might need to duplicate a resource. A cache memory is a common example of this concept, which keeps a "local" copy of a data element in the high speed cache memory. Unfortunately, this speed improvement comes with a downside, since the product needs to ensure that the local copy always mirrors the original copy truthfully. If they get out of sync, the computational result is no longer true.

During hardware design, memory is not the only item which gets mirrored. There are many other entities that get mirrored, as well: registers, memory regions, and, in some cases, even whole computational units. For example, within a multi-core processor, if all memory accesses for each and every core goes through a single Memory-Management Unit (MMU) then the MMU will become a performance bottleneck. In such cases, duplicating local MMUs that will serve only a subset of the cores rather than all of them may resolve the performance issue. These local copies are also called "shadow copies" or "mirrored copies."

If the original resource never changed, local duplicate copies getting out of sync would never be an issue. However, the values of the original copy will sometimes change. When the original copy changes, the mirrored copies must also change, and change fast.

This situation of shadow-copy-possibly-out-of-sync-with-original-copy might occur as a result of multiple scenarios, including the following:

  • After the values in the original copy change, due to some reason the original copy does not send the "update" request to its shadow copies.
  • After the values in the original copy change, the original copy dutifully sends the "update" request to its shadow copies, but due to some reason the shadow copy does not "execute" this update request.
  • After the values in the original copy change, the original copy sends the "update" request to its shadow copies, and the shadow copy executes this update request faithfully. However, during the small time period when the original copy has "new" values and the shadow copy is still holding the "old" values, an attacker can exploit the old values. Then it becomes a race condition between the attacker and the update process of who can reach the target, shadow copy first, and, if the attacker reaches first, the attacker wins.
  • The attacker might send a "spoofed" update request to the target shadow copy, pretending that this update request is coming from the original copy. This spoofed request might cause the targeted shadow copy to update its values to some attacker-friendly values, while the original copies remain unchanged by the attacker.
  • Suppose a situation where the original copy has a system of reverting back to its original value if it does not hear back from all the shadow copies that such copies have successfully completed the update request. In such a case, an attack might occur as follows: (1) the original copy might send an update request; (2) the shadow copy updates it; (3) the shadow copy sends back the successful completion message; (4) through a separate issue, the attacker is able to intercept the shadow copy's completion message. In this case, the original copy thinks that the update did not succeed, hence it reverts to its original value. Now there is a situation where the original copy has the "old" value, and the shadow copy has the "new" value.
+ Relationships

The table(s) below 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)
ChildOfBaseBase - 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.1250Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State
+ Relevant to the view "Hardware Design" (CWE-1194)
MemberOfCategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.1202Memory and Storage Issues
+ Applicable Platforms
The listings below show 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.


VHDL (Undetermined Prevalence)

Verilog (Undetermined Prevalence)

Operating Systems

Class: OS-Independent (Undetermined Prevalence)


Class: Architecture-Independent (Undetermined Prevalence)


Class: System on Chip (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Common Consequences

The table below 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.

Access Control

Technical Impact: Varies by Context

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

Suppose a processor's Memory Management Unit (MMU) has 5 shadow MMUs to distribute the workload of the cores being serviced. Each MMU has the start address and end address of "accessible" memory. Any time this accessible range changes (as per the processor's boot status), the main MMU sends an update message to all the shadow MMUs.

Suppose the interconnect fabric does not prioritize such "update" packets over other general traffic packets. This introduces a race condition. If an attacker can flood the target with enough messages so that some of those attack packets reach the target before the new access ranges gets updated, then the attacker can leverage this scenario.

+ Potential Mitigations

Phase: Architecture and Design

Whenever there are multiple, physically different copies of the same value that might change and the process to update them is not instantaneous and atomic, it is impossible to assert that the original and shadow copies will always be in sync - there will always be a time period when they are out of sync. To mitigate the consequential risk, the recommendations essentially are:

  • Make this out-of-sync time period as small as possible, and
  • Make the update process as robust as possible.

Effectiveness: Moderate

+ Notes

Research Gap

Issues related to state and cache - creation, preservation, and update - are a significant gap in CWE that is expected to be addressed in future versions. It has relationships to concurrency and synchronization, incorrect behavior order, and other areas that already have some coverage in CWE, although the focus has typically been on independent processes on the same operating system - not on independent systems that are all a part of a larger system-of-systems.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission DateSubmitterOrganization
2020-02-10Arun Kanuparthi, Hareesh Khattri, Parbati Kumar Manna, Narasimha Kumar V MangipudiIntel Corporation
+ Modifications
Modification DateModifierOrganization
2020-08-20CWE Content TeamMITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Research_Gaps
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Page Last Updated: August 20, 2020