CWE - CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write (4.12)

Weakness ID: 787

Abstraction: Base
Structure: Simple

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.

Description

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Extended Description

Typically, this can result in corruption of data, a crash, or code execution. The product may modify an index or perform pointer arithmetic that references a memory location that is outside of the boundaries of the buffer. A subsequent write operation then produces undefined or unexpected results.

Alternate Terms

Memory Corruption:	Often used to describe the consequences of writing to memory outside the bounds of a buffer, or to memory that is invalid, when the root cause is something other than a sequential copy of excessive data from a fixed starting location. This may include issues such as incorrect pointer arithmetic, accessing invalid pointers due to incomplete initialization or memory release, etc.

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.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
ParentOf	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.	121	Stack-based Buffer Overflow
ParentOf	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.	122	Heap-based Buffer Overflow
ParentOf	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.	123	Write-what-where Condition
ParentOf	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.	124	Buffer Underwrite ('Buffer Underflow')
CanFollow	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.	822	Untrusted Pointer Dereference
CanFollow	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.	823	Use of Out-of-range Pointer Offset
CanFollow	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.	824	Access of Uninitialized Pointer
CanFollow	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.	825	Expired Pointer Dereference

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.	1218	Memory Buffer Errors

Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (CWE-1003)

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.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (CWE-1305)

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.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (CWE-1340)

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.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Modes Of Introduction

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

C (Often Prevalent)

C++ (Often Prevalent)

Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent)

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 Availability	Technical Impact: Modify Memory; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

The following code attempts to save four different identification numbers into an array.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

int id_sequence[3];

/* Populate the id array. */

id_sequence[0] = 123;
id_sequence[1] = 234;
id_sequence[2] = 345;
id_sequence[3] = 456;

Since the array is only allocated to hold three elements, the valid indices are 0 to 2; so, the assignment to id_sequence[3] is out of bounds.

Example 2

In the following code, it is possible to request that memcpy move a much larger segment of memory than assumed:

(bad code)

Example Language: C

int returnChunkSize(void *) {

/* if chunk info is valid, return the size of usable memory,

* else, return -1 to indicate an error

*/
...

}
int main() {

...
memcpy(destBuf, srcBuf, (returnChunkSize(destBuf)-1));
...

}

If returnChunkSize() happens to encounter an error it will return -1. Notice that the return value is not checked before the memcpy operation (CWE-252), so -1 can be passed as the size argument to memcpy() (CWE-805). Because memcpy() assumes that the value is unsigned, it will be interpreted as MAXINT-1 (CWE-195), and therefore will copy far more memory than is likely available to the destination buffer (CWE-787, CWE-788).

Example 3

This code takes an IP address from the user and verifies that it is well formed. It then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

void host_lookup(char *user_supplied_addr){

struct hostent *hp;
in_addr_t *addr;
char hostname[64];
in_addr_t inet_addr(const char *cp);

/*routine that ensures user_supplied_addr is in the right format for conversion */

validate_addr_form(user_supplied_addr);
addr = inet_addr(user_supplied_addr);
hp = gethostbyaddr( addr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET);
strcpy(hostname, hp->h_name);

}

This function allocates a buffer of 64 bytes to store the hostname. However, there is no guarantee that the hostname will not be larger than 64 bytes. If an attacker specifies an address which resolves to a very large hostname, then the function may overwrite sensitive data or even relinquish control flow to the attacker.

Note that this example also contains an unchecked return value (CWE-252) that can lead to a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476).

Example 4

This code applies an encoding procedure to an input string and stores it into a buffer.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

char * copy_input(char *user_supplied_string){

int i, dst_index;
char *dst_buf = (char*)malloc(4*sizeof(char) * MAX_SIZE);
if ( MAX_SIZE <= strlen(user_supplied_string) ){

die("user string too long, die evil hacker!");

}
dst_index = 0;
for ( i = 0; i < strlen(user_supplied_string); i++ ){

if( '&' == user_supplied_string[i] ){

dst_buf[dst_index++] = '&';
dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'a';
dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'm';
dst_buf[dst_index++] = 'p';
dst_buf[dst_index++] = ';';

}
else if ('<' == user_supplied_string[i] ){

/* encode to < */

}
else dst_buf[dst_index++] = user_supplied_string[i];

}
return dst_buf;

}

The programmer attempts to encode the ampersand character in the user-controlled string. However, the length of the string is validated before the encoding procedure is applied. Furthermore, the programmer assumes encoding expansion will only expand a given character by a factor of 4, while the encoding of the ampersand expands by 5. As a result, when the encoding procedure expands the string it is possible to overflow the destination buffer if the attacker provides a string of many ampersands.

Example 5

In the following C/C++ code, a utility function is used to trim trailing whitespace from a character string. The function copies the input string to a local character string and uses a while statement to remove the trailing whitespace by moving backward through the string and overwriting whitespace with a NUL character.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

char* trimTrailingWhitespace(char *strMessage, int length) {

char *retMessage;
char *message = malloc(sizeof(char)*(length+1));

// copy input string to a temporary string
char message[length+1];
int index;
for (index = 0; index < length; index++) {

message[index] = strMessage[index];

}
message[index] = '\0';

// trim trailing whitespace
int len = index-1;
while (isspace(message[len])) {

message[len] = '\0';
len--;

}

// return string without trailing whitespace
retMessage = message;
return retMessage;

}

However, this function can cause a buffer underwrite if the input character string contains all whitespace. On some systems the while statement will move backwards past the beginning of a character string and will call the isspace() function on an address outside of the bounds of the local buffer.

Example 6

The following code allocates memory for a maximum number of widgets. It then gets a user-specified number of widgets, making sure that the user does not request too many. It then initializes the elements of the array using InitializeWidget(). Because the number of widgets can vary for each request, the code inserts a NULL pointer to signify the location of the last widget.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

int i;
unsigned int numWidgets;
Widget **WidgetList;

numWidgets = GetUntrustedSizeValue();
if ((numWidgets == 0) || (numWidgets > MAX_NUM_WIDGETS)) {

ExitError("Incorrect number of widgets requested!");

}
WidgetList = (Widget **)malloc(numWidgets * sizeof(Widget *));
printf("WidgetList ptr=%p\n", WidgetList);
for(i=0; i<numWidgets; i++) {

WidgetList[i] = InitializeWidget();

}
WidgetList[numWidgets] = NULL;
showWidgets(WidgetList);

However, this code contains an off-by-one calculation error (CWE-193). It allocates exactly enough space to contain the specified number of widgets, but it does not include the space for the NULL pointer. As a result, the allocated buffer is smaller than it is supposed to be (CWE-131). So if the user ever requests MAX_NUM_WIDGETS, there is an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) when the NULL is assigned. Depending on the environment and compilation settings, this could cause memory corruption.

Example 7

The following code may result in a buffer underwrite, if find() returns a negative value to indicate that ch is not found in srcBuf:

(bad code)

Example Language: C

int main() {

...
strncpy(destBuf, &srcBuf[find(srcBuf, ch)], 1024);
...

}

If the index to srcBuf is somehow under user control, this is an arbitrary write-what-where condition.

Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2021-21220	Chain: insufficient input validation (CWE-20) in browser allows heap corruption (CWE-787), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2021-28664	GPU kernel driver allows memory corruption because a user can obtain read/write access to read-only pages, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2020-17087	Chain: integer truncation (CWE-197) causes small buffer allocation (CWE-131) leading to out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) in kernel pool, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2020-1054	Out-of-bounds write in kernel-mode driver, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2020-0041	Escape from browser sandbox using out-of-bounds write due to incorrect bounds check, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2020-0968	Memory corruption in web browser scripting engine, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2020-0022	chain: mobile phone Bluetooth implementation does not include offset when calculating packet length (CWE-682), leading to out-of-bounds write (CWE-787)
CVE-2019-1010006	Chain: compiler optimization (CWE-733) removes or modifies code used to detect integer overflow (CWE-190), allowing out-of-bounds write (CWE-787).
CVE-2009-1532	malformed inputs cause accesses of uninitialized or previously-deleted objects, leading to memory corruption
CVE-2009-0269	chain: -1 value from a function call was intended to indicate an error, but is used as an array index instead.
CVE-2002-2227	Unchecked length of SSLv2 challenge value leads to buffer underflow.
CVE-2007-4580	Buffer underflow from a small size value with a large buffer (length parameter inconsistency, CWE-130)
CVE-2007-4268	Chain: integer signedness error (CWE-195) passes signed comparison, leading to heap overflow (CWE-122)
CVE-2009-2550	Classic stack-based buffer overflow in media player using a long entry in a playlist
CVE-2009-2403	Heap-based buffer overflow in media player using a long entry in a playlist

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Requirements

Strategy: Language Selection

Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer.

Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.

Phase: Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.

Note: This is not a complete solution, since many buffer overflows are not related to strings.

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking.

D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses canary-based detection in detail.

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Note:

This is not necessarily a complete solution, since these mechanisms only detect certain types of overflows. In addition, the result is still a denial of service, since the typical response is to exit the application.

Phase: Implementation

Consider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory:

Double check that the buffer is as large as specified.

When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string.

Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer in a loop and make sure there is no danger of writing past the allocated space.

If necessary, truncate all input strings to a reasonable length before passing them to the copy and concatenation functions.

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run or compile the software using features or extensions that randomly arrange the positions of a program's executable and libraries in memory. Because this makes the addresses unpredictable, it can prevent an attacker from reliably jumping to exploitable code.

Examples include Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) [REF-58] [REF-60] and Position-Independent Executables (PIE) [REF-64]. Imported modules may be similarly realigned if their default memory addresses conflict with other modules, in a process known as "rebasing" (for Windows) and "prelinking" (for Linux) [REF-1332] using randomly generated addresses. ASLR for libraries cannot be used in conjunction with prelink since it would require relocating the libraries at run-time, defeating the whole purpose of prelinking.

For more information on these techniques see D3-SAOR (Segment Address Offset Randomization) from D3FEND [REF-1335].

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Note: These techniques do not provide a complete solution. For instance, exploits frequently use a bug that discloses memory addresses in order to maximize reliability of code execution [REF-1337]. It has also been shown that a side-channel attack can bypass ASLR [REF-1333]

Phase: Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (using hardware NX or XD bits) or the equivalent techniques that simulate this feature in software, such as PaX [REF-60] [REF-61]. These techniques ensure that any instruction executed is exclusively at a memory address that is part of the code segment.

For more information on these techniques see D3-PSEP (Process Segment Execution Prevention) from D3FEND [REF-1336].

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Note: This is not a complete solution, since buffer overflows could be used to overwrite nearby variables to modify the software's state in dangerous ways. In addition, it cannot be used in cases in which self-modifying code is required. Finally, an attack could still cause a denial of service, since the typical response is to exit the application.

Phase: Implementation

Replace unbounded copy functions with analogous functions that support length arguments, such as strcpy with strncpy. Create these if they are not available.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Note: This approach is still susceptible to calculation errors, including issues such as off-by-one errors (CWE-193) and incorrectly calculating buffer lengths (CWE-131).

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

This weakness can often be detected using automated static analysis tools. Many modern tools use data flow analysis or constraint-based techniques to minimize the number of false positives.

Automated static analysis generally does not account for environmental considerations when reporting out-of-bounds memory operations. This can make it difficult for users to determine which warnings should be investigated first. For example, an analysis tool might report buffer overflows that originate from command line arguments in a program that is not expected to run with setuid or other special privileges.

Effectiveness: High

Note: Detection techniques for buffer-related errors are more mature than for most other weakness types.

Automated Dynamic Analysis

This weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

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	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1200	Weaknesses in the 2019 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1337	Weaknesses in the 2021 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1350	Weaknesses in the 2020 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1366	ICS Communications: Frail Security in Protocols
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1387	Weaknesses in the 2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1399	Comprehensive Categorization: Memory Safety
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1425	Weaknesses in the 2023 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: Allowed

(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.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Mapped Node Name
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 3-3	Req SR 3.5
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SI-1
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SI-2
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SVV-1
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SVV-3
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-2	Req CR 3.5

References

[REF-1029] Aleph One. "Smashing The Stack For Fun And Profit". 1996-11-08. <http://phrack.org/issues/49/14.html>.

[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 5, "Stack Overruns" Page 129. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04. <https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.

[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 5, "Heap Overruns" Page 138. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04. <https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.

[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 5: Buffer Overruns." Page 89. McGraw-Hill. 2010.

[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 3, "Nonexecutable Stack", Page 76. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.

[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 5, "Protection Mechanisms", Page 189. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.

[REF-90] "Buffer UNDERFLOWS: What do you know about it?". Vuln-Dev Mailing List. 2004-01-10. <https://seclists.org/vuln-dev/2004/Jan/22>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-56] Microsoft. "Using the Strsafe.h Functions". <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/menurc/strsafe-ovw?redirectedfrom=MSDN>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-57] Matt Messier and John Viega. "Safe C String Library v1.0.3". <http://www.gnu-darwin.org/www001/ports-1.5a-CURRENT/devel/safestr/work/safestr-1.0.3/doc/safestr.html>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-58] Michael Howard. "Address Space Layout Randomization in Windows Vista". <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/michael_howard/address-space-layout-randomization-in-windows-vista>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-60] "PaX". <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executable_space_protection#PaX>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-61] Microsoft. "Understanding DEP as a mitigation technology part 1". <https://msrc.microsoft.com/blog/2009/06/understanding-dep-as-a-mitigation-technology-part-1/>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-64] Grant Murphy. "Position Independent Executables (PIE)". Red Hat. 2012-11-28. <https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/position-independent-executables-pie>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

[REF-1332] John Richard Moser. "Prelink and address space randomization". 2006-07-05. <https://lwn.net/Articles/190139/>. URL validated: 2023-04-26.

[REF-1333] Dmitry Evtyushkin, Dmitry Ponomarev, Nael Abu-Ghazaleh. "Jump Over ASLR: Attacking Branch Predictors to Bypass ASLR". 2016. <http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~nael/pubs/micro16.pdf>. URL validated: 2023-04-26.

[REF-1334] D3FEND. "Stack Frame Canary Validation (D3-SFCV)". 2023. <https://d3fend.mitre.org/technique/d3f:StackFrameCanaryValidation/>. URL validated: 2023-04-26.

[REF-1335] D3FEND. "Segment Address Offset Randomization (D3-SAOR)". 2023. <https://d3fend.mitre.org/technique/d3f:SegmentAddressOffsetRandomization/>. URL validated: 2023-04-26.

[REF-1336] D3FEND. "Process Segment Execution Prevention (D3-PSEP)". 2023. <https://d3fend.mitre.org/technique/d3f:ProcessSegmentExecutionPrevention/>. URL validated: 2023-04-26.

[REF-1337] Alexander Sotirov and Mark Dowd. "Bypassing Browser Memory Protections: Setting back browser security by 10 years". Memory information leaks. 2008. <https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-08/Sotirov_Dowd/bh08-sotirov-dowd.pdf>. URL validated: 2023-04-26.

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2009-10-21 (CWE 1.6, 2009-10-29)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-10-21 (CWE 1.6, 2009-10-29)
Contributions
Contribution Date	Contributor	Organization
2023-04-25	"Mapping CWE to 62443" Sub-Working Group	CWE-CAPEC ICS/OT SIG
2023-04-25	Suggested mappings to ISA/IEC 62443.
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2010-02-16	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-02-16	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2010-09-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-09-27	updated Relationships
2011-06-01	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-01	updated Common_Consequences
2014-06-23	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-06-23	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2015-12-07	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2015-12-07	updated Relationships
2018-03-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018-03-27	updated Description
2019-09-19	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-09-19	updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2020-06-25	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-06-25	updated Observed_Examples
2020-08-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-08-20	updated Alternate_Terms, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, Relationships
2020-12-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-12-10	updated Relationships
2021-03-15	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-03-15	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2021-07-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-07-20	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2022-06-28	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022-06-28	updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2022-10-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022-10-13	updated Applicable_Platforms
2023-01-31	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-01-31	updated Alternate_Terms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description
2023-04-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-04-27	updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings


	Site Map \| Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Contact Us \| 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 © 2006–2023, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation.

Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-787: Out-of-bounds Write

Edit Custom Filter