CWE-1265: Unintended Reentrant Invocation of Non-reentrant Code Via Nested Calls
Weakness ID: 1265
Vulnerability Mapping:
ALLOWEDThis CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities Abstraction: BaseBase - 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.
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
Description
During execution of non-reentrant code, the product performs a call that unintentionally produces a nested invocation of the non-reentrant code.
Extended Description
In a complex product, a single function call may lead to many different possible code paths, some of which may involve deeply nested calls. It may be difficult to foresee all possible code paths that could emanate from a given function call. In some systems, an external actor can manipulate inputs to the system and thereby achieve a wide range of possible control flows. This is frequently a concern in products that execute scripts from untrusted sources. Examples of such products are web browsers and PDF readers. A weakness is present when one of the possible code paths resulting from a function call alters program state that the original caller assumes to be unchanged during the call.
Common 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.
Scope
Impact
Likelihood
Integrity
Technical Impact: Unexpected State
Exploitation of this weakness can leave the application in an unexpected state and cause variables to be reassigned before the first invocation has completed. This may eventually result in memory corruption or unexpected code execution.
Unknown
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Architecture and Design
When architecting a system that will execute untrusted code in response to events, consider executing the untrusted event handlers asynchronously (asynchronous message passing) as opposed to executing them synchronously at the time each event fires. The untrusted code should execute at the start of the next iteration of the thread's message loop. In this way, calls into non-reentrant code are strictly serialized, so that each operation completes fully before the next operation begins. Special attention must be paid to all places where type coercion may result in script execution. Performing all needed coercions at the very beginning of an operation can help reduce the chance of operations executing at unexpected junctures.
Effectiveness: High
Phase: Implementation
Make sure the code (e.g., function or class) in question is reentrant by not leveraging non-local data, not modifying its own code, and not calling other non-reentrant code.
Effectiveness: High
Relationships
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)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
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.
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.
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.
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 "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
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)
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
The implementation of the Widget class in the following C++ code is an example of code that is not designed to be reentrant. If an invocation of a method of Widget inadvertently produces a second nested invocation of a method of Widget, then data member backgroundImage may unexpectedly change during execution of the outer call.
(bad code)
Example Language: C++
class Widget {
private:
Image* backgroundImage;
public:
void click() {
if (backgroundImage) {
backgroundImage->click();
}
}
void changeBackgroundImage(Image* newImage) {
if (backgroundImage) {
delete backgroundImage;
} backgroundImage = newImage;
}
}
class Image {
public:
void click() {
scriptEngine->fireOnImageClick(); /* perform some operations using "this" pointer */
}
}
Looking closer at this example, Widget::click() calls backgroundImage->click(), which in turn calls scriptEngine->fireOnImageClick(). The code within fireOnImageClick() invokes the appropriate script handler routine as defined by the document being rendered. In this scenario this script routine is supplied by an adversary and this malicious script makes a call to Widget::changeBackgroundImage(), deleting the Image object pointed to by backgroundImage. When control returns to Image::click, the function's backgroundImage "this" pointer (which is the former value of backgroundImage) is a dangling pointer. The root of this weakness is that while one operation on Widget (click) is in the midst of executing, a second operation on the Widget object may be invoked (in this case, the second invocation is a call to different method, namely changeBackgroundImage) that modifies the non-local variable.
Example 2
This is another example of C++ code that is not designed to be reentrant.
The expected order of operations is a call to Request::setup(), followed by a call to Request::send(). Request::send() calls scriptEngine->coerceToString(_data) to coerce a script-provided parameter into a string. This operation may produce script execution. For example, if the script language is ECMAScript, arbitrary script execution may result if _data is an adversary-supplied ECMAScript object having a custom toString method. If the adversary's script makes a new call to Request::setup, then when control returns to Request::send, the field uri and the local variable credentials will no longer be consistent with one another. As a result, credentials for one resource will be shared improperly with a different resource. The root of this weakness is that while one operation on Request (send) is in the midst of executing, a second operation may be invoked (setup).
This CVE covers several vulnerable scenarios enabled by abuse of the Class_Terminate feature in Microsoft VBScript. In one scenario, Class_Terminate is used to produce an undesirable re-entrance of ScriptingDictionary during execution of that object's destructor. In another scenario, a vulnerable condition results from a recursive entrance of a property setter method. This recursive invocation produces a second, spurious call to the Release method of a reference-counted object, causing a UAF when that object is freed prematurely. This vulnerability pattern has been popularized as "Double Kill". [REF-1099]
Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality
Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Memberships
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.
Nature
Type
ID
Name
MemberOf
Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason: Acceptable-Use
Rationale:
This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Comments:
Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.
[REF-1098] Jack Tang. "Root Cause Analysis of CVE-2014-1772 - An Internet Explorer Use After Free Vulnerability". 2014-11-05.
<https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research.html>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.
Description
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.
