CWE-547: Use of Hard-coded, Security-relevant Constants
Presentation Filter:
 DescriptionThe program uses hard-coded constants instead of symbolic names for security-critical values, which increases the likelihood of mistakes during code maintenance or security policy change. Extended DescriptionIf the developer does not find all occurrences of the hard-coded constants, an incorrect policy decision may be made if one of the constants is not changed. Making changes to these values will require code changes that may be difficult or impossible once the system is released to the field. In addition, these hard-coded values may become available to attackers if the code is ever disclosed. RelationshipsThe 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)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)
Modes Of IntroductionThe 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.
Common ConsequencesThe 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.
Demonstrative ExamplesExample 1 The usage of symbolic names instead of hard-coded constants is preferred. The following is an example of using a hard-coded constant instead of a symbolic name. (bad code) Example Language: C char buffer[1024];
... fgets(buffer, 1024, stdin); If the buffer value needs to be changed, then it has to be altered in more than one place. If the developer forgets or does not find all occurences, in this example it could lead to a buffer overflow. (bad code) Example Language: C enum { MAX_BUFFER_SIZE = 1024 };
... char buffer[MAX_BUFFER_SIZE]; ... fgets(buffer, MAX_BUFFER_SIZE, stdin); In this example the developer will only need to change one value and all references to the buffer size are updated, as a symbolic name is used instead of a hard-coded constant. Potential Mitigations
Weakness Ordinalities
MembershipsThis 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.
Taxonomy Mappings
Content History
More information is available — Please 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 © 2006-2021, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. |
|
