| 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" (View-1000) 
  Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003) 
  Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305) 
  Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-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) 
                                    
                                    Example Language: Java 
                                    
                                 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. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE 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. 
 
 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.
                             
 
 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 © 2006–2025, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. | ||
 
	                