CWE-1341: Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle
Weakness ID: 1341
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
The product attempts to close or release a resource or handle more than once, without any successful open between the close operations.
Extended Description
Code typically requires "opening" handles or references to resources such as memory, files, devices, socket connections, services, etc. When the code is finished with using the resource, it is typically expected to "close" or "release" the resource, which indicates to the environment (such as the OS) that the resource can be re-assigned or reused by unrelated processes or actors - or in some cases, within the same process. API functions or other abstractions are often used to perform this release, such as free() or delete() within C/C++, or file-handle close() operations that are used in many languages.
Unfortunately, the implementation or design of such APIs might expect the developer to be responsible for ensuring that such APIs are only called once per release of the resource. If the developer attempts to release the same resource/handle more than once, then the API's expectations are not met, resulting in undefined and/or insecure behavior. This could lead to consequences such as memory corruption, data corruption, execution path corruption, or other consequences.
Note that while the implementation for most (if not all) resource reservation allocations involve a unique identifier/pointer/symbolic reference, then if this identifier is reused, checking the identifier for resource closure may result in a false state of openness and closing of the wrong resource. For this reason, reuse of identifiers is discouraged.
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
Availability Integrity
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
Medium
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Implementation
Change the code's logic so that the resource is only closed once. This might require simplifying or refactoring. This fix can be simple to do in small code blocks, but more difficult when multiple closes are buried within complex conditionals.
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Refactoring
It can be effective to implement a flag that is (1) set when the resource is opened, (2) cleared when it is closed, and (3) checked before closing. This approach can be useful when there are disparate cases in which closes must be performed. However, flag-tracking can increase code complexity and requires diligent compliance by the programmer.
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Refactoring
When closing a resource, set the resource's associated variable to NULL or equivalent value for the given language. Some APIs will ignore this null value without causing errors. For other APIs, this can lead to application crashes or exceptions, which may still be preferable to corrupting an unintended resource such as memory or data.
Effectiveness: Defense in Depth
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Phase
Note
Implementation
Applicable Platforms
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)
Rust
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Class: Not Language-Specific
(Undetermined Prevalence)
C
(Undetermined Prevalence)
C++
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Operating Systems
Class: Not OS-Specific
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Architectures
Class: Not Architecture-Specific
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Technologies
Class: Not Technology-Specific
(Undetermined Prevalence)
Demonstrative Examples
Example 1
This example attempts to close a file twice. In some cases, the C library fclose() function will catch the error and return an error code. In other implementations, a double-free (CWE-415) occurs, causing the program to fault. Note that the examples presented here are simplistic, and double fclose() calls will frequently be spread around a program, making them more difficult to find during code reviews.
(bad code)
Example Language: C
char b[2000];
FILE *f = fopen("dbl_cls.c", "r");
if (f)
{
b[0] = 0;
fread(b, 1, sizeof(b) - 1, f);
printf("%s\n'", b);
int r1 = fclose(f);
printf("\n-----------------\n1 close done '%d'\n", r1);
int r2 = fclose(f); // Double close
printf("2 close done '%d'\n", r2);
}
There are multiple possible fixes. This fix only has one call to fclose(), which is typically the preferred handling of this problem - but this simplistic method is not always possible.
(good code)
Example Language: C
char b[2000];
FILE *f = fopen("dbl_cls.c", "r");
if (f)
{
b[0] = 0;
fread(b, 1, sizeof(b) - 1, f);
printf("%s\n'", b);
int r = fclose(f);
printf("\n-----------------\n1 close done '%d'\n", r);
}
This fix uses a flag to call fclose() only once. Note that this flag is explicit. The variable "f" could also have been used as it will be either NULL if the file is not able to be opened or a valid pointer if the file was successfully opened. If "f" is replacing "f_flg" then "f" would need to be set to NULL after the first fclose() call so the second fclose call would never be executed.
(good code)
Example Language: C
char b[2000];
int f_flg = 0;
FILE *f = fopen("dbl_cls.c", "r");
if (f)
{
int r1 = fclose(f);
f_flg = 0;
printf("\n-----------------\n1 close done '%d'\n", r1);
}
if (f_flg)
{
int r2 = fclose(f); // Double close
f_flg = 0;
printf("2 close done '%d'\n", r2);
}
}
Example 2
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:
Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances
Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for freeing the memory
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.
Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
Detection
Methods
Automated Static Analysis
For commonly-used APIs and resource types, automated tools often have signatures that can spot this issue.
Automated Dynamic Analysis
Some compiler instrumentation tools such as AddressSanitizer (ASan) can indirectly detect some instances of this weakness.
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 may 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.
Notes
Terminology
The terms related to "release" may vary depending on the type of resource, programming language, specification, or framework. "Close" has been used synonymously for the release of resources like file descriptors and file handles. "Return" is sometimes used instead of Release. "Free" is typically used when releasing memory or buffers back into the system for reuse.
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.
