| Home > CWE List > VIEW SLICE: CWE-1003: Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities (4.19.1) |
|
CWE VIEW: Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities
CWE entries in this view (graph) may be used to categorize potential weaknesses within sources that handle public, third-party vulnerability information, such as the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). By design, this view is incomplete. It is limited to a small number of the most commonly-seen weaknesses, so that it is easier for humans to use. This view uses a shallow hierarchy of two levels in order to simplify the complex navigation of the entire CWE corpus.
The following graph shows the tree-like relationships between
weaknesses that exist at different levels of abstraction. At the highest level, categories
and pillars exist to group weaknesses. Categories (which are not technically weaknesses) are
special CWE entries used to group weaknesses that share a common characteristic. Pillars are
weaknesses that are described in the most abstract fashion. Below these top-level entries
are weaknesses are varying levels of abstraction. Classes are still very abstract, typically
independent of any specific language or technology. Base level weaknesses are used to
present a more specific type of weakness. A variant is a weakness that is described at a
very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. A chain is
a set of weaknesses that must be reachable consecutively in order to produce an exploitable
vulnerability. While a composite is a set of weaknesses that must all be present
simultaneously in order to produce an exploitable vulnerability.
Show Details:
1003 - Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
20
(Improper Input Validation)
The product receives input or data, but it does
not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the
properties that are required to process the data safely and
correctly.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
20
(Improper Input Validation) >
1284
(Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input)
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
20
(Improper Input Validation) >
129
(Improper Validation of Array Index)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
out-of-bounds array index
index-out-of-range
array index underflow
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
1236
(Improper Neutralization of Formula Elements in a CSV File)
The product saves user-provided information into a Comma-Separated Value (CSV) file, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as a command when the file is opened by a spreadsheet product.
CSV Injection
Formula Injection
Excel Macro Injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Command injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
78
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Shell injection
Shell metacharacters
OS Command Injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
79
(Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'))
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
XSS
HTML Injection
Reflected XSS / Non-Persistent XSS / Type 1 XSS
Stored XSS / Persistent XSS / Type 2 XSS
DOM-Based XSS / Type 0 XSS
CSS
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
88
(Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection'))
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component
in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the
intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
89
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
SQL injection
SQLi
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
91
(XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection))
The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
917
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an expression language (EL) statement in a framework such as a Java Server Page (JSP) using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended EL statement before it is executed.
EL Injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')) >
94
(Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Code Injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
116
(Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output)
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
Output Sanitization
Output Validation
Output Encoding
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
116
(Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output) >
838
(Inappropriate Encoding for Output Context)
The product uses or specifies an encoding when generating output to a downstream component, but the specified encoding is not the same as the encoding that is expected by the downstream component.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer)
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
Buffer Overflow
buffer overrun
memory safety
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
120
(Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow'))
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Classic Buffer Overflow
Unbounded Transfer
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
125
(Out-of-bounds Read)
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
OOB read
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
787
(Out-of-bounds Write)
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Memory Corruption
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer) >
824
(Access of Uninitialized Pointer)
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
200
(Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
Information Disclosure
Information Leak
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
200
(Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor) >
203
(Observable Discrepancy)
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor, which exposes security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
Side Channel Attack
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
200
(Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor) >
209
(Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
200
(Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor) >
532
(Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File)
The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
269
(Improper Privilege Management)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
authentification
AuthN
AuthC
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
290
(Authentication Bypass by Spoofing)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
294
(Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
295
(Improper Certificate Validation)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
306
(Missing Authentication for Critical Function)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
307
(Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
521
(Weak Password Requirements)
The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
522
(Insufficiently Protected Credentials)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
640
(Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password)
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
287
(Improper Authentication) >
798
(Use of Hard-coded Credentials)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
311
(Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
311
(Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data) >
312
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
311
(Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data) >
319
(Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information)
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
326
(Inadequate Encryption Strength)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
327
(Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
327
(Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm) >
916
(Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort)
The product generates a hash for a password, but it uses a scheme that does not provide a sufficient level of computational effort that would make password cracking attacks infeasible or expensive.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
330
(Use of Insufficiently Random Values)
The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
330
(Use of Insufficiently Random Values) >
331
(Insufficient Entropy)
The product uses an algorithm or scheme that produces insufficient entropy, leaving patterns or clusters of values that are more likely to occur than others.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
330
(Use of Insufficiently Random Values) >
335
(Incorrect Usage of Seeds in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
330
(Use of Insufficiently Random Values) >
338
(Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) in a security context, but the PRNG's algorithm is not cryptographically strong.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity)
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity) >
346
(Origin Validation Error)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity) >
347
(Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity) >
352
(Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF))
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Session Riding
Cross Site Reference Forgery
XSRF
CSRF
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity) >
354
(Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity) >
924
(Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel)
The product establishes a communication channel with an endpoint and receives a message from that endpoint, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the message was not modified during transmission.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
362
(Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition'))
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Race Condition
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
362
(Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')) >
367
(Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition)
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
TOCTTOU
TOCCTOU
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
400
(Uncontrolled Resource Consumption)
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
Resource Exhaustion
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
400
(Uncontrolled Resource Consumption) >
770
(Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling)
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
400
(Uncontrolled Resource Consumption) >
920
(Improper Restriction of Power Consumption)
The product operates in an environment in which power is a limited resource that cannot be automatically replenished, but the product does not properly restrict the amount of power that its operation consumes.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
401
(Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, making the memory unavailable for reallocation and reuse.
Memory Leak
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
459
(Incomplete Cleanup)
The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.
Insufficient Cleanup
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
763
(Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference)
The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release) >
772
(Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
407
(Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity)
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
Quadratic Complexity
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
407
(Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity) >
1333
(Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity)
The product uses a regular expression with an inefficient, possibly exponential worst-case computational complexity that consumes excessive CPU cycles.
ReDoS
Regular Expression Denial of Service
Catastrophic backtracking
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
436
(Interpretation Conflict)
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
436
(Interpretation Conflict) >
444
(Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling'))
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent
(such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two
entities such as a client and server, but it does not
interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that
are consistent with how the messages will be processed by
those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
HTTP Request Smuggling
HTTP Response Smuggling
HTTP Smuggling
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere)
The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere) >
1021
(Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames)
The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain, which can lead to user confusion about which interface the user is interacting with.
Clickjacking
UI Redress Attack
Tapjacking
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere) >
384
(Session Fixation)
Authenticating a user, or otherwise establishing a new user session, without invalidating any existing session identifier gives an attacker the opportunity to steal authenticated sessions.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere) >
601
(URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect'))
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Open Redirect
Cross-site Redirect
Cross-domain Redirect
Unvalidated Redirect
Drive-by download
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere) >
611
(Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference)
The product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product to embed incorrect documents into its output.
XXE
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere) >
918
(Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF))
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
XSPA
SSRF
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
662
(Improper Synchronization)
The product utilizes multiple threads, processes, components, or systems to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
662
(Improper Synchronization) >
667
(Improper Locking)
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
665
(Improper Initialization)
The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
1188
(Initialization of a Resource with an Insecure Default)
The product initializes or sets a resource with a default that is intended to be changed by the product's installer, administrator, or maintainer, but the default is not secure.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
908
(Use of Uninitialized Resource)
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
665
(Improper Initialization) >
909
(Missing Initialization of Resource)
The product does not initialize a critical resource.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere)
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere) >
134
(Use of Externally-Controlled Format String)
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere) >
426
(Untrusted Search Path)
The product searches for critical resources using an externally-supplied search path that can point to resources that are not under the product's direct control.
Untrusted Path
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere) >
427
(Uncontrolled Search Path Element)
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
DLL preloading
Binary planting
Insecure library loading
Dependency confusion
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere) >
428
(Unquoted Search Path or Element)
The product uses a search path that contains an unquoted element, in which the element contains whitespace or other separators. This can cause the product to access resources in a parent path.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere) >
552
(Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties)
The product makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres)
The product does not properly transfer a resource/behavior to another sphere, or improperly imports a resource/behavior from another sphere, in a manner that provides unintended control over that resource.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres) >
212
(Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer)
The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the resource available to unauthorized actors.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres) >
434
(Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Unrestricted File Upload
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres) >
494
(Download of Code Without Integrity Check)
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres) >
565
(Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking)
The product relies on the existence or values of cookies when performing security-critical operations, but it does not properly ensure that the setting is valid for the associated user.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres) >
829
(Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere)
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
670
(Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation)
The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
670
(Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation) >
617
(Reachable Assertion)
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
assertion failure
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release)
The product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
415
(Double Free)
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
Double-free
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
416
(Use After Free)
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Dangling pointer
UAF
Use-After-Free
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
672
(Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release) >
613
(Insufficient Session Expiration)
According to WASC, "Insufficient Session Expiration is when a web site permits an attacker to reuse old session credentials or session IDs for authorization."
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
674
(Uncontrolled Recursion)
The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.
Stack Exhaustion
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
674
(Uncontrolled Recursion) >
776
(Improper Restriction of Recursive Entity References in DTDs ('XML Entity Expansion'))
The product uses XML documents and allows their structure to be defined with a Document Type Definition (DTD), but it does not properly control the number of recursive definitions of entities.
XEE
Billion Laughs Attack
XML Bomb
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation)
The product performs a calculation that generates incorrect or unintended results that are later used in security-critical decisions or resource management.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
131
(Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size)
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
190
(Integer Overflow or Wraparound)
The product performs a calculation that can
produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic
assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than
the original value. This occurs when an integer value is
incremented to a value that is too large to store in the
associated representation. When this occurs, the value may
become a very small or negative number.
Overflow
Wraparound
wrap, wrap-around, wrap around
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
191
(Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound))
The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the correct result.
Integer underflow
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
193
(Off-by-one Error)
A product calculates or uses an incorrect maximum or minimum value that is 1 more, or 1 less, than the correct value.
off-by-five
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
682
(Incorrect Calculation) >
369
(Divide By Zero)
The product divides a value by zero.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
697
(Incorrect Comparison)
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
704
(Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast)
The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
704
(Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast) >
681
(Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types)
When converting from one data type to another, such as long to integer, data can be omitted or translated in a way that produces unexpected values. If the resulting values are used in a sensitive context, then dangerous behaviors may occur.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
704
(Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast) >
843
(Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion'))
The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.
Object Type Confusion
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
706
(Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference)
The product uses a name or reference to access a resource, but the name/reference resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
706
(Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference) >
178
(Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity)
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
706
(Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference) >
22
(Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'))
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Directory traversal
Path traversal
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
706
(Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference) >
59
(Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following'))
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
insecure temporary file
Zip Slip
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
732
(Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
732
(Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource) >
276
(Incorrect Default Permissions)
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
732
(Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource) >
281
(Improper Preservation of Permissions)
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
754
(Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
754
(Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions) >
252
(Unchecked Return Value)
The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
754
(Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions) >
273
(Improper Check for Dropped Privileges)
The product attempts to drop privileges but does not check or incorrectly checks to see if the drop succeeded.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
754
(Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions) >
476
(NULL Pointer Dereference)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
NPD
null deref
NPE
nil pointer dereference
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
755
(Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles an exceptional condition.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
834
(Excessive Iteration)
The product performs an iteration or loop without sufficiently limiting the number of times that the loop is executed.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
834
(Excessive Iteration) >
835
(Loop with Unreachable Exit Condition ('Infinite Loop'))
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
862
(Missing Authorization)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
AuthZ
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
862
(Missing Authorization) >
425
(Direct Request ('Forced Browsing'))
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
forced browsing
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
863
(Incorrect Authorization)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
AuthZ
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
863
(Incorrect Authorization) >
639
(Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Insecure Direct Object Reference / IDOR
Broken Object Level Authorization / BOLA
Horizontal Authorization
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
913
(Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources)
The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
913
(Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources) >
1321
(Improperly Controlled Modification of Object Prototype Attributes ('Prototype Pollution'))
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control modifications of attributes of the object prototype.
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
913
(Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources) >
470
(Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection'))
The product uses external input with reflection to select which classes or code to use, but it does not sufficiently prevent the input from selecting improper classes or code.
Reflection Injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
913
(Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources) >
502
(Deserialization of Untrusted Data)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Marshaling, Unmarshaling
Pickling, Unpickling
PHP Object Injection
1003
(Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities) >
922
(Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information)
The product stores sensitive information without properly limiting read or write access by unauthorized actors.
Maintenance
This view may change in any upcoming CWE version based on the experience of NVD analysts, public feedback, and the CWE Team - especially with respect to the CWE Top 25 analysis.
Maintenance
This view has been modified significantly since its last major revision in 2016 (CWE-635 was used before 2016).
View ComponentsA | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')
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 allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompatible with the original type.
When the product accesses the resource using an incompatible type, this could trigger logical errors because the resource does not have expected properties. In languages without memory safety, such as C and C++, type confusion can lead to out-of-bounds memory access. While this weakness is frequently associated with unions when parsing data with many different embedded object types in C, it can be present in any application that can interpret the same variable or memory location in multiple ways. This weakness is not unique to C and C++. For example, errors in PHP applications can be triggered by providing array parameters when scalars are expected, or vice versa. Languages such as Perl, which perform automatic conversion of a variable of one type when it is accessed as if it were another type, can also contain these issues. 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code uses a union to support the representation of different types of messages. It formats messages differently, depending on their type. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define NAME_TYPE 1
#define ID_TYPE 2 struct MessageBuffer { int msgType; };union { char *name; };int nameID; int main (int argc, char **argv) { struct MessageBuffer buf;
char *defaultMessage = "Hello World"; buf.msgType = NAME_TYPE; buf.name = defaultMessage; printf("Pointer of buf.name is %p\n", buf.name); /* This particular value for nameID is used to make the code architecture-independent. If coming from untrusted input, it could be any value. */ buf.nameID = (int)(defaultMessage + 1); printf("Pointer of buf.name is now %p\n", buf.name); if (buf.msgType == NAME_TYPE) { printf("Message: %s\n", buf.name); }else { printf("Message: Use ID %d\n", buf.nameID); }The code intends to process the message as a NAME_TYPE, and sets the default message to "Hello World." However, since both buf.name and buf.nameID are part of the same union, they can act as aliases for the same memory location, depending on memory layout after compilation. As a result, modification of buf.nameID - an int - can effectively modify the pointer that is stored in buf.name - a string. Execution of the program might generate output such as:
Pointer of name is 10830
Pointer of name is now 10831
Message: ello World
Notice how the pointer for buf.name was changed, even though buf.name was not explicitly modified. In this case, the first "H" character of the message is omitted. However, if an attacker is able to fully control the value of buf.nameID, then buf.name could contain an arbitrary pointer, leading to out-of-bounds reads or writes. Example 2 The following PHP code accepts a value, adds 5, and prints the sum. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$value = $_GET['value'];
$sum = $value + 5; echo "value parameter is '$value'<p>"; echo "SUM is $sum"; When called with the following query string:
value=123
the program calculates the sum and prints out:
SUM is 128
However, the attacker could supply a query string such as:
value[]=123
The "[]" array syntax causes $value to be treated as an array type, which then generates a fatal error when calculating $sum:
Fatal error: Unsupported operand types in program.php on line 2
Example 3 The following Perl code is intended to look up the privileges for user ID's between 0 and 3, by performing an access of the $UserPrivilegeArray reference. It is expected that only userID 3 is an admin (since this is listed in the third element of the array). (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $UserPrivilegeArray = ["user", "user", "admin", "user"];
my $userID = get_current_user_ID(); if ($UserPrivilegeArray eq "user") { print "Regular user!\n"; }else { print "Admin!\n"; }print "\$UserPrivilegeArray = $UserPrivilegeArray\n"; In this case, the programmer intended to use "$UserPrivilegeArray->{$userID}" to access the proper position in the array. But because the subscript was omitted, the "user" string was compared to the scalar representation of the $UserPrivilegeArray reference, which might be of the form "ARRAY(0x229e8)" or similar. Since the logic also "fails open" (CWE-636), the result of this bug is that all users are assigned administrator privileges. While this is a forced example, it demonstrates how type confusion can have security consequences, even in memory-safe languages. 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.
Applicable Platform This weakness is possible in any type-unsafe programming language. Research Gap Type confusion weaknesses have received some attention by applied researchers and major software vendors for C and C++ code. Some publicly-reported vulnerabilities probably have type confusion as a root-cause weakness, but these may be described as "memory corruption" instead. For other languages, there are very few public reports of type confusion weaknesses. These are probably under-studied. Since many programs rely directly or indirectly on loose typing, a potential "type confusion" behavior might be intentional, possibly requiring more manual analysis.
CWE-824: Access of Uninitialized Pointer
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 FilterIf the pointer contains an uninitialized value, then the value might not point to a valid memory location. This could cause the product to read from or write to unexpected memory locations, leading to a denial of service. If the uninitialized pointer is used as a function call, then arbitrary functions could be invoked. If an attacker can influence the portion of uninitialized memory that is contained in the pointer, this weakness could be leveraged to execute code or perform other attacks. Depending on memory layout, associated memory management behaviors, and product operation, the attacker might be able to influence the contents of the uninitialized pointer, thus gaining more fine-grained control of the memory location to be accessed. 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
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.
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.
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.
Terminology
Many weaknesses related to pointer dereferences fall under the general term of "memory corruption" or "memory safety." As of September 2010, there is no commonly-used terminology that covers the lower-level variants.
Maintenance
There are close relationships between incorrect pointer dereferences and other weaknesses related to buffer operations. There may not be sufficient community agreement regarding these relationships. Further study is needed to determine when these relationships are chains, composites, perspective/layering, or other types of relationships. As of September 2010, most of the relationships are being captured as chains.
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
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 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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code allocates a socket and forks each time it receives a new connection. (bad code)
Example Language: C
sock=socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
while (1) { newsock=accept(sock, ...); }printf("A connection has been accepted\n"); pid = fork(); The program does not track how many connections have been made, and it does not limit the number of connections. Because forking is a relatively expensive operation, an attacker would be able to cause the system to run out of CPU, processes, or memory by making a large number of connections. Alternatively, an attacker could consume all available connections, preventing others from accessing the system remotely. Example 2 In the following example a server socket connection is used to accept a request to store data on the local file system using a specified filename. The method openSocketConnection establishes a server socket to accept requests from a client. When a client establishes a connection to this service the getNextMessage method is first used to retrieve from the socket the name of the file to store the data, the openFileToWrite method will validate the filename and open a file to write to on the local file system. The getNextMessage is then used within a while loop to continuously read data from the socket and output the data to the file until there is no longer any data from the socket. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int writeDataFromSocketToFile(char *host, int port)
{ char filename[FILENAME_SIZE]; char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; int socket = openSocketConnection(host, port); if (socket < 0) { printf("Unable to open socket connection"); }return(FAIL); if (getNextMessage(socket, filename, FILENAME_SIZE) > 0) { if (openFileToWrite(filename) > 0) {
while (getNextMessage(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE) > 0){
if (!(writeToFile(buffer) > 0)) }break;
closeFile(); closeSocket(socket); This example creates a situation where data can be dumped to a file on the local file system without any limits on the size of the file. This could potentially exhaust file or disk resources and/or limit other clients' ability to access the service. Example 3 In the following example, the processMessage method receives a two dimensional character array containing the message to be processed. The two-dimensional character array contains the length of the message in the first character array and the message body in the second character array. The getMessageLength method retrieves the integer value of the length from the first character array. After validating that the message length is greater than zero, the body character array pointer points to the start of the second character array of the two-dimensional character array and memory is allocated for the new body character array. (bad code)
Example Language: C
/* process message accepts a two-dimensional character array of the form [length][body] containing the message to be processed */ int processMessage(char **message) { char *body;
int length = getMessageLength(message[0]); if (length > 0) { body = &message[1][0]; }processMessageBody(body); return(SUCCESS); else { printf("Unable to process message; invalid message length"); }return(FAIL); This example creates a situation where the length of the body character array can be very large and will consume excessive memory, exhausting system resources. This can be avoided by restricting the length of the second character array with a maximum length check Also, consider changing the type from 'int' to 'unsigned int', so that you are always guaranteed that the number is positive. This might not be possible if the protocol specifically requires allowing negative values, or if you cannot control the return value from getMessageLength(), but it could simplify the check to ensure the input is positive, and eliminate other errors such as signed-to-unsigned conversion errors (CWE-195) that may occur elsewhere in the code. (good code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int length = getMessageLength(message[0]);
if ((length > 0) && (length < MAX_LENGTH)) {...} Example 4 In the following example, a server object creates a server socket and accepts client connections to the socket. For every client connection to the socket a separate thread object is generated using the ClientSocketThread class that handles request made by the client through the socket. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void acceptConnections() {
try {
ServerSocket serverSocket = new ServerSocket(SERVER_PORT);
int counter = 0; boolean hasConnections = true; while (hasConnections) { Socket client = serverSocket.accept(); }Thread t = new Thread(new ClientSocketThread(client)); t.setName(client.getInetAddress().getHostName() + ":" + counter++); t.start(); serverSocket.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} In this example there is no limit to the number of client connections and client threads that are created. Allowing an unlimited number of client connections and threads could potentially overwhelm the system and system resources. The server should limit the number of client connections and the client threads that are created. This can be easily done by creating a thread pool object that limits the number of threads that are generated. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public static final int SERVER_PORT = 4444;
public static final int MAX_CONNECTIONS = 10; ... public void acceptConnections() { try {
ServerSocket serverSocket = new ServerSocket(SERVER_PORT);
int counter = 0; boolean hasConnections = true; while (hasConnections) { hasConnections = checkForMoreConnections(); }Socket client = serverSocket.accept(); Thread t = new Thread(new ClientSocketThread(client)); t.setName(client.getInetAddress().getHostName() + ":" + counter++); ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(MAX_CONNECTIONS); pool.execute(t); serverSocket.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} Example 5 An unnamed web site allowed a user to purchase tickets for an event. A menu option allowed the user to purchase up to 10 tickets, but the back end did not restrict the actual number of tickets that could be purchased.
Example 6 Here the problem is that every time a connection is made, more memory is allocated. So if one just opened up more and more connections, eventually the machine would run out of memory. (bad code)
Example Language: C
bar connection() {
foo = malloc(1024); }return foo; endConnection(bar foo) { free(foo); }int main() { while(1) { }foo=connection(); }endConnection(foo) 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.
Relationship
This entry is different from uncontrolled resource consumption (CWE-400) in that there are other weaknesses that are related to inability to control resource consumption, such as holding on to a resource too long after use, or not correctly keeping track of active resources so that they can be managed and released when they are finished (CWE-771).
Theoretical
Vulnerability theory is largely about how behaviors and resources interact. "Resource exhaustion" can be regarded as either a consequence or an attack, depending on the perspective. This entry is an attempt to reflect one of the underlying weaknesses that enable these attacks (or consequences) to take place.
CWE-670: Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation
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 code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
This weakness captures cases in which a particular code segment is always incorrect with respect to the algorithm that it is implementing. For example, if a C programmer intends to include multiple statements in a single block but does not include the enclosing braces (CWE-483), then the logic is always incorrect. This issue is in contrast to most weaknesses in which the code usually behaves correctly, except when it is externally manipulated in malicious ways.
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)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code queries a server and displays its status when a request comes from an authorized IP address. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$requestingIP = $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'];
if(!in_array($requestingIP,$ipAllowList)){ echo "You are not authorized to view this page"; }http_redirect($errorPageURL); $status = getServerStatus(); echo $status; ... This code redirects unauthorized users, but continues to execute code after calling http_redirect(). This means even unauthorized users may be able to access the contents of the page or perform a DoS attack on the server being queried. Also, note that this code is vulnerable to an IP address spoofing attack (CWE-212). Example 2 In this example, the programmer has indented the statements to call Do_X() and Do_Y(), as if the intention is that these functions are only called when the condition is true. However, because there are no braces to signify the block, Do_Y() will always be executed, even if the condition is false. (bad code)
Example Language: C
if (condition==true)
Do_X();
Do_Y(); This might not be what the programmer intended. When the condition is critical for security, such as in making a security decision or detecting a critical error, this may produce a vulnerability. Example 3 In both of these examples, a message is printed based on the month passed into the function: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void printMessage(int month){
switch (month) {
case 1: print("January"); case 2: print("February"); case 3: print("March"); case 4: print("April"); case 5: print("May"); case 6: print("June"); case 7: print("July"); case 8: print("August"); case 9: print("September"); case 10: print("October"); case 11: print("November"); case 12: print("December"); println(" is a great month"); (bad code)
Example Language: C
void printMessage(int month){
switch (month) {
case 1: printf("January"); case 2: printf("February"); case 3: printf("March"); case 4: printf("April"); case 5: printff("May"); case 6: printf("June"); case 7: printf("July"); case 8: printf("August"); case 9: printf("September"); case 10: printf("October"); case 11: printf("November"); case 12: printf("December"); printf(" is a great month"); Both examples do not use a break statement after each case, which leads to unintended fall-through behavior. For example, calling "printMessage(10)" will result in the text "OctoberNovemberDecember is a great month" being printed. Example 4 In the excerpt below, an AssertionError (an unchecked exception) is thrown if the user hasn't entered an email address in an HTML form. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String email = request.getParameter("email_address");
assert email != null; 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
This node could possibly be split into lower-level nodes. "Early Return" is for returning control to the caller too soon (e.g., CWE-584). "Excess Return" is when control is returned too far up the call stack (CWE-600, CWE-395). "Improper control limitation" occurs when the product maintains control at a lower level of execution, when control should be returned "further" up the call stack (CWE-455). "Incorrect syntax" covers code that's "just plain wrong" such as CWE-484 and CWE-483.
CWE-294: Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay
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 FilterA capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Capture-replay attacks are common and can be difficult to defeat without cryptography. They are a subset of network injection attacks that rely on observing previously-sent valid commands, then changing them slightly if necessary and resending the same commands to the server.
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
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.
CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
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 FilterThis attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code authenticates users. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String sourceIP = request.getRemoteAddr();
if (sourceIP != null && sourceIP.equals(APPROVED_IP)) { authenticated = true; }The authentication mechanism implemented relies on an IP address for source validation. If an attacker is able to spoof the IP, they may be able to bypass the authentication mechanism. Example 2 Both of these examples check if a request is from a trusted address before responding to the request. (bad code)
Example Language: C
sd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
serv.sin_family = AF_INET; serv.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY); servr.sin_port = htons(1008); bind(sd, (struct sockaddr *) & serv, sizeof(serv)); while (1) { memset(msg, 0x0, MAX_MSG); }clilen = sizeof(cli); if (inet_ntoa(cli.sin_addr)==getTrustedAddress()) { n = recvfrom(sd, msg, MAX_MSG, 0, (struct sockaddr *) & cli, &clilen); }(bad code)
Example Language: Java
while(true) {
DatagramPacket rp=new DatagramPacket(rData,rData.length);
outSock.receive(rp); String in = new String(p.getData(),0, rp.getLength()); InetAddress clientIPAddress = rp.getAddress(); int port = rp.getPort(); if (isTrustedAddress(clientIPAddress) & secretKey.equals(in)) { out = secret.getBytes(); }DatagramPacket sp =new DatagramPacket(out,out.length, IPAddress, port); outSock.send(sp); The code only verifies the address as stored in the request packet. An attacker can spoof this address, thus impersonating a trusted client. Example 3 The following code samples use a DNS lookup in order to decide whether or not an inbound request is from a trusted host. If an attacker can poison the DNS cache, they can gain trusted status. (bad code)
Example Language: C
struct hostent *hp;struct in_addr myaddr;
char* tHost = "trustme.example.com"; myaddr.s_addr=inet_addr(ip_addr_string); hp = gethostbyaddr((char *) &myaddr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); if (hp && !strncmp(hp->h_name, tHost, sizeof(tHost))) { trusted = true; } else {trusted = false; }(bad code)
Example Language: Java
String ip = request.getRemoteAddr();
InetAddress addr = InetAddress.getByName(ip); if (addr.getCanonicalHostName().endsWith("trustme.com")) { trusted = true; }(bad code)
Example Language: C#
IPAddress hostIPAddress = IPAddress.Parse(RemoteIpAddress);
IPHostEntry hostInfo = Dns.GetHostByAddress(hostIPAddress); if (hostInfo.HostName.EndsWith("trustme.com")) { trusted = true; }IP addresses are more reliable than DNS names, but they can also be spoofed. Attackers can easily forge the source IP address of the packets they send, but response packets will return to the forged IP address. To see the response packets, the attacker has to sniff the traffic between the victim machine and the forged IP address. In order to accomplish the required sniffing, attackers typically attempt to locate themselves on the same subnet as the victim machine. Attackers may be able to circumvent this requirement by using source routing, but source routing is disabled across much of the Internet today. In summary, IP address verification can be a useful part of an authentication scheme, but it should not be the single factor required for authentication. 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.
CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
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 system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Retrieval of a user record occurs in the system based on some key value that is under user control. The key would typically identify a user-related record stored in the system and would be used to lookup that record for presentation to the user. It is likely that an attacker would have to be an authenticated user in the system. However, the authorization process would not properly check the data access operation to ensure that the authenticated user performing the operation has sufficient entitlements to perform the requested data access, hence bypassing any other authorization checks present in the system. For example, attackers can look at places where user specific data is retrieved (e.g. search screens) and determine whether the key for the item being looked up is controllable externally. The key may be a hidden field in the HTML form field, might be passed as a URL parameter or as an unencrypted cookie variable, then in each of these cases it will be possible to tamper with the key value. One manifestation of this weakness is when a system uses sequential or otherwise easily-guessable session IDs that would allow one user to easily switch to another user's session and read/modify their data.
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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code uses a parameterized statement, which escapes metacharacters and prevents SQL injection vulnerabilities, to construct and execute a SQL query that searches for an invoice matching the specified identifier [1]. The identifier is selected from a list of all invoices associated with the current authenticated user. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
...
conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString); conn.Open(); int16 id = System.Convert.ToInt16(invoiceID.Text); SqlCommand query = new SqlCommand( "SELECT * FROM invoices WHERE id = @id", conn); query.Parameters.AddWithValue("@id", id); SqlDataReader objReader = objCommand.ExecuteReader(); ... The problem is that the developer has not considered all of the possible values of id. Although the interface generates a list of invoice identifiers that belong to the current user, an attacker can bypass this interface to request any desired invoice. Because the code in this example does not check to ensure that the user has permission to access the requested invoice, it will display any invoice, even if it does not belong to the current user. 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.
CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
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
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
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)
Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (View-700)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code asks the user to enter their last name and then attempts to store the value entered in the last_name array. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char last_name[20];
printf ("Enter your last name: "); scanf ("%s", last_name); The problem with the code above is that it does not restrict or limit the size of the name entered by the user. If the user enters "Very_very_long_last_name" which is 24 characters long, then a buffer overflow will occur since the array can only hold 20 characters total. Example 2 The following code attempts to create a local copy of a buffer to perform some manipulations to the data. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void manipulate_string(char * string){
char buf[24]; }strcpy(buf, string); ... However, the programmer does not ensure that the size of the data pointed to by string will fit in the local buffer and copies the data with the potentially dangerous strcpy() function. This may result in a buffer overflow condition if an attacker can influence the contents of the string parameter. Example 3 The code below calls the gets() function to read in data from the command line. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[24]; }printf("Please enter your name and press <Enter>\n"); gets(buf); ... However, gets() is inherently unsafe, because it copies all input from STDIN to the buffer without checking size. This allows the user to provide a string that is larger than the buffer size, resulting in an overflow condition. Example 4 In the following example, a server accepts connections from a client and processes the client request. After accepting a client connection, the program will obtain client information using the gethostbyaddr method, copy the hostname of the client that connected to a local variable and output the hostname of the client to a log file. (bad code)
Example Language: C
...
struct hostent *clienthp;
char hostname[MAX_LEN]; // create server socket, bind to server address and listen on socket ... // accept client connections and process requests int count = 0; for (count = 0; count < MAX_CONNECTIONS; count++) { int clientlen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); int clientsocket = accept(serversocket, (struct sockaddr *)&clientaddr, &clientlen); if (clientsocket >= 0) { clienthp = gethostbyaddr((char*) &clientaddr.sin_addr.s_addr, sizeof(clientaddr.sin_addr.s_addr), AF_INET);
strcpy(hostname, clienthp->h_name); logOutput("Accepted client connection from host ", hostname); // process client request ... close(clientsocket); close(serversocket); ... However, the hostname of the client that connected may be longer than the allocated size for the local hostname variable. This will result in a buffer overflow when copying the client hostname to the local variable using the strcpy method. 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.
Relationship
At the code level, stack-based and heap-based overflows do not differ significantly, so there usually is not a need to distinguish them. From the attacker perspective, they can be quite different, since different techniques are required to exploit them.
Terminology
There is significant inconsistency
regarding the "buffer overflow" term, which can have
multiple interpretations and uses. Many people mean
"writing past the end of a buffer." Others mean "writing
past the end of a buffer, or before the beginning of a
buffer." Still others might include "read" in the term.
Other
A buffer overflow condition exists when a product attempts to put more data in a buffer than it can hold, or when it attempts to put data in a memory area outside of the boundaries of a buffer. The simplest type of error, and the most common cause of buffer overflows, is the "classic" case in which the product copies the buffer without restricting how much data is copied. Other variants exist, but the existence of a classic overflow strongly suggests that the programmer is not considering even the most basic of security protections.
CWE-312: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information
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 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code excerpt stores a plaintext user account ID in a browser cookie. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
response.addCookie( new Cookie("userAccountID", acctID);
Because the account ID is in plaintext, the user's account information is exposed if their computer is compromised by an attacker. Example 2 This code writes a user's login information to a cookie so the user does not have to login again later. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
function persistLogin($username, $password){
$data = array("username" => $username, "password"=> $password); }setcookie ("userdata", $data); The code stores the user's username and password in plaintext in a cookie on the user's machine. This exposes the user's login information if their computer is compromised by an attacker. Even if the user's machine is not compromised, this weakness combined with cross-site scripting (CWE-79) could allow an attacker to remotely copy the cookie. Also note this example code also exhibits Plaintext Storage in a Cookie (CWE-315). Example 3 The following code attempts to establish a connection, read in a password, then store it to a buffer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
server.sin_family = AF_INET; hp = gethostbyname(argv[1]);
if (hp==NULL) error("Unknown host"); memcpy( (char *)&server.sin_addr,(char *)hp->h_addr,hp->h_length); if (argc < 3) port = 80; else port = (unsigned short)atoi(argv[3]); server.sin_port = htons(port); if (connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&server, sizeof server) < 0) error("Connecting"); ... while ((n=read(sock,buffer,BUFSIZE-1))!=-1) { write(dfd,password_buffer,n); ... While successful, the program does not encrypt the data before writing it to a buffer, possibly exposing it to unauthorized actors. Example 4 The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but they are stored in cleartext. This Java example shows a properties file with a cleartext username / password pair. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file ... webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername webapp.ldap.password=secretPassword ... The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database but the pair is stored in cleartext. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
...
<connectionStrings> <add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" /> </connectionStrings>... Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in cleartext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information. Example 5 In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. At least one OT product stored a password in plaintext. Example 6 In 2021, a web site operated by PeopleGIS stored data of US municipalities in Amazon Web Service (AWS) Simple Storage Service (S3) buckets. (bad code)
Example Language: Other
A security researcher found 86 S3 buckets that could be accessed without authentication (CWE-306) and stored data unencrypted (CWE-312). These buckets exposed over 1000 GB of data and 1.6 million files including physical addresses, phone numbers, tax documents, pictures of driver's license IDs, etc. [REF-1296] [REF-1295]
While it was not publicly disclosed how the data was protected after discovery, multiple options could have been considered. (good code)
Example Language: Other
The sensitive information could have been protected by ensuring that the buckets did not have public read access, e.g., by enabling the s3-account-level-public-access-blocks-periodic rule to Block Public Access. In addition, the data could have been encrypted at rest using the appropriate S3 settings, e.g., by enabling server-side encryption using the s3-bucket-server-side-encryption-enabled setting. Other settings are available to further prevent bucket data from being leaked. [REF-1297]
Example 7 Consider the following PowerShell command examples for encryption scopes of Azure storage objects. In the first example, an encryption scope is set for the storage account. (bad code)
Example Language: Shell
New-AzStorageEncryptionScope -ResourceGroupName "MyResourceGroup" -AccountName "MyStorageAccount" -EncryptionScopeName testscope -StorageEncryption
The result (edited and formatted for readability) might be: (bad code)
Example Language: Other
ResourceGroupName: MyResourceGroup, StorageAccountName: MyStorageAccount
However, the empty string under RequireInfrastructureEncryption indicates this service was not enabled at the time of creation, because the -RequireInfrastructureEncryption argument was not specified in the command. Including the -RequireInfrastructureEncryption argument addresses the issue: (good code)
Example Language: Shell
New-AzStorageEncryptionScope -ResourceGroupName "MyResourceGroup" -AccountName "MyStorageAccount" -EncryptionScopeName testscope -StorageEncryption -RequireInfrastructureEncryption
This produces the report: (result)
Example Language: Other
ResourceGroupName: MyResourceGroup, StorageAccountName: MyStorageAccount
In a scenario where both software and hardware layer encryption is required ("double encryption"), Azure's infrastructure encryption setting can be enabled via the CLI or Portal. An important note is that infrastructure hardware encryption cannot be enabled or disabled after a blob is created. Furthermore, the default value for infrastructure encryption is disabled in blob creations. 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.
Terminology
Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).
Other
When organizations adopt cloud services, it can be easier for attackers to access the data from anywhere on the Internet.
CWE-319: Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information
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 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Relevant to the view "Hardware Design" (View-1194)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code attempts to establish a connection to a site to communicate sensitive information. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
URL u = new URL("http://www.secret.example.org/"); }HttpURLConnection hu = (HttpURLConnection) u.openConnection(); hu.setRequestMethod("PUT"); hu.connect(); OutputStream os = hu.getOutputStream(); hu.disconnect(); catch (IOException e) {
//...
}Though a connection is successfully made, the connection is unencrypted and it is possible that all sensitive data sent to or received from the server will be read by unintended actors. Example 2 In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. Multiple vendors used cleartext transmission of sensitive information in their OT products. Example 3 A TAP accessible register is read/written by a JTAG based tool, for internal use by authorized users. However, an adversary can connect a probing device and collect the values from the unencrypted channel connecting the JTAG interface to the authorized user, if no additional protections are employed. Example 4 The following Azure CLI command lists the properties of a particular storage account: (informative)
Example Language: Shell
az storage account show -g {ResourceGroupName} -n {StorageAccountName}
The JSON result might be: (bad code)
Example Language: JSON
{
"name": "{StorageAccountName}",
}
"enableHttpsTrafficOnly": false, "type": "Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts" The enableHttpsTrafficOnly value is set to false, because the default setting for Secure transfer is set to Disabled. This allows cloud storage resources to successfully connect and transfer data without the use of encryption (e.g., HTTP, SMB 2.1, SMB 3.0, etc.). Azure's storage accounts can be configured to only accept requests from secure connections made over HTTPS. The secure transfer setting can be enabled using Azure's Portal (GUI) or programmatically by setting the enableHttpsTrafficOnly property to True on the storage account, such as: (good code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage account update -g {ResourceGroupName} -n {StorageAccountName} --https-only true
The change can be confirmed from the result by verifying that the enableHttpsTrafficOnly value is true: (good code)
Example Language: JSON
{
"name": "{StorageAccountName}",
}
"enableHttpsTrafficOnly": true, "type": "Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts"
Note: to enable secure transfer using Azure's Portal instead of the command line:
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.
Other
Applicable communication channels are not limited to software products. Applicable channels include hardware-specific technologies such as internal hardware networks and external debug channels, supporting remote JTAG debugging. When mitigations are not applied to combat adversaries within the product's threat model, this weakness significantly lowers the difficulty of exploitation by such adversaries.
CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')
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 FilterA race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:
A race condition exists when an "interfering code sequence" can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be "trusted" or "untrusted." A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product. 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)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code could be used in an e-commerce application that supports transfers between accounts. It takes the total amount of the transfer, sends it to the new account, and deducts the amount from the original account. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$transfer_amount = GetTransferAmount();
$balance = GetBalanceFromDatabase(); if ($transfer_amount < 0) { FatalError("Bad Transfer Amount"); }$newbalance = $balance - $transfer_amount; if (($balance - $transfer_amount) < 0) { FatalError("Insufficient Funds"); }SendNewBalanceToDatabase($newbalance); NotifyUser("Transfer of $transfer_amount succeeded."); NotifyUser("New balance: $newbalance"); A race condition could occur between the calls to GetBalanceFromDatabase() and SendNewBalanceToDatabase(). Suppose the balance is initially 100.00. An attack could be constructed as follows: (attack code)
Example Language: Other
In the following pseudocode, the attacker makes two simultaneous calls of the program, CALLER-1 and CALLER-2. Both callers are for the same user account.
CALLER-1 (the attacker) is associated with PROGRAM-1 (the instance that handles CALLER-1). CALLER-2 is associated with PROGRAM-2. CALLER-1 makes a transfer request of 80.00. PROGRAM-1 calls GetBalanceFromDatabase and sets $balance to 100.00 PROGRAM-1 calculates $newbalance as 20.00, then calls SendNewBalanceToDatabase(). Due to high server load, the PROGRAM-1 call to SendNewBalanceToDatabase() encounters a delay. CALLER-2 makes a transfer request of 1.00. PROGRAM-2 calls GetBalanceFromDatabase() and sets $balance to 100.00. This happens because the previous PROGRAM-1 request was not processed yet. PROGRAM-2 determines the new balance as 99.00. After the initial delay, PROGRAM-1 commits its balance to the database, setting it to 20.00. PROGRAM-2 sends a request to update the database, setting the balance to 99.00 At this stage, the attacker should have a balance of 19.00 (due to 81.00 worth of transfers), but the balance is 99.00, as recorded in the database. To prevent this weakness, the programmer has several options, including using a lock to prevent multiple simultaneous requests to the web application, or using a synchronization mechanism that includes all the code between GetBalanceFromDatabase() and SendNewBalanceToDatabase(). Example 2 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 3 Suppose a processor's Memory Management Unit (MMU) has 5 other shadow MMUs to distribute its workload for its various cores. Each MMU has the start address and end address of "accessible" memory. Any time this accessible range changes (as per the processor's boot status), the main MMU sends an update message to all the shadow MMUs. Suppose the interconnect fabric does not prioritize such "update" packets over other general traffic packets. This introduces a race condition. If an attacker can flood the target with enough messages so that some of those attack packets reach the target before the new access ranges gets updated, then the attacker can leverage this scenario. 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.
Research Gap
Race conditions in web applications are under-studied and probably under-reported. However, in 2008 there has been growing interest in this area.
Research Gap
Much of the focus of race condition research has been in Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) variants (CWE-367), but many race conditions are related to synchronization problems that do not necessarily require a time-of-check.
Research Gap
From a classification/taxonomy perspective, the relationships between concurrency and program state need closer investigation and may be useful in organizing related issues.
Maintenance
The relationship between race conditions and synchronization problems (CWE-662) needs to be further developed. They are not necessarily two perspectives of the same core concept, since synchronization is only one technique for avoiding race conditions, and synchronization can be used for other purposes besides race condition prevention.
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
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 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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This example PHP code attempts to secure the form submission process by validating that the user submitting the form has a valid session. A CSRF attack would not be prevented by this countermeasure because the attacker forges a request through the user's web browser in which a valid session already exists. The following HTML is intended to allow a user to update a profile. (bad code)
Example Language: HTML
<form action="/url/profile.php" method="post">
<input type="text" name="firstname"/> <input type="text" name="lastname"/> <br/> <input type="text" name="email"/> <input type="submit" name="submit" value="Update"/> </form> profile.php contains the following code. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
// initiate the session in order to validate sessions
session_start(); //if the session is registered to a valid user then allow update if (! session_is_registered("username")) { echo "invalid session detected!"; // Redirect user to login page [...] exit; // The user session is valid, so process the request // and update the information update_profile(); function update_profile { // read in the data from $POST and send an update // to the database SendUpdateToDatabase($_SESSION['username'], $_POST['email']); [...] echo "Your profile has been successfully updated."; This code may look protected since it checks for a valid session. However, CSRF attacks can be staged from virtually any tag or HTML construct, including image tags, links, embed or object tags, or other attributes that load background images. The attacker can then host code that will silently change the username and email address of any user that visits the page while remaining logged in to the target web application. The code might be an innocent-looking web page such as: (attack code)
Example Language: HTML
<SCRIPT>
function SendAttack () { form.email = "attacker@example.com"; }// send to profile.php form.submit(); </SCRIPT> <BODY onload="javascript:SendAttack();"> <form action="http://victim.example.com/profile.php" id="form" method="post"> <input type="hidden" name="firstname" value="Funny"> <input type="hidden" name="lastname" value="Joke"> <br/> <input type="hidden" name="email"> </form> Notice how the form contains hidden fields, so when it is loaded into the browser, the user will not notice it. Because SendAttack() is defined in the body's onload attribute, it will be automatically called when the victim loads the web page. Assuming that the user is already logged in to victim.example.com, profile.php will see that a valid user session has been established, then update the email address to the attacker's own address. At this stage, the user's identity has been compromised, and messages sent through this profile could be sent to the attacker's address. 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.
Relationship There can be a close relationship between XSS and CSRF (CWE-352). An attacker might use CSRF in order to trick the victim into submitting requests to the server in which the requests contain an XSS payload. A well-known example of this was the Samy worm on MySpace [REF-956]. The worm used XSS to insert malicious HTML sequences into a user's profile and add the attacker as a MySpace friend. MySpace friends of that victim would then execute the payload to modify their own profiles, causing the worm to propagate exponentially. Since the victims did not intentionally insert the malicious script themselves, CSRF was a root cause. Theoretical The CSRF topology is multi-channel:
CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data
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
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code snippet deserializes an object from a file and uses it as a UI button: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
File file = new File("object.obj"); }ObjectInputStream in = new ObjectInputStream(new FileInputStream(file)); javax.swing.JButton button = (javax.swing.JButton) in.readObject(); in.close(); This code does not attempt to verify the source or contents of the file before deserializing it. An attacker may be able to replace the intended file with a file that contains arbitrary malicious code which will be executed when the button is pressed. To mitigate this, explicitly define final readObject() to prevent deserialization. An example of this is: (good code)
Example Language: Java
private final void readObject(ObjectInputStream in) throws java.io.IOException {
throw new java.io.IOException("Cannot be deserialized"); } Example 2 In Python, the Pickle library handles the serialization and deserialization processes. In this example derived from [REF-467], the code receives and parses data, and afterwards tries to authenticate a user based on validating a token. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
try {
class ExampleProtocol(protocol.Protocol):
def dataReceived(self, data): # Code that would be here would parse the incoming data # After receiving headers, call confirmAuth() to authenticate def confirmAuth(self, headers): try: token = cPickle.loads(base64.b64decode(headers['AuthToken'])) if not check_hmac(token['signature'], token['data'], getSecretKey()): raise AuthFail self.secure_data = token['data'] except: raise AuthFail Unfortunately, the code does not verify that the incoming data is legitimate. An attacker can construct a illegitimate, serialized object "AuthToken" that instantiates one of Python's subprocesses to execute arbitrary commands. For instance,the attacker could construct a pickle that leverages Python's subprocess module, which spawns new processes and includes a number of arguments for various uses. Since Pickle allows objects to define the process for how they should be unpickled, the attacker can direct the unpickle process to call Popen in the subprocess module and execute /bin/sh. 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.
CWE-425: Direct Request ('Forced Browsing')
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 web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
Web applications susceptible to direct request attacks often make the false assumption that such resources can only be reached through a given navigation path and so only apply authorization at certain points in the path.
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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 If forced browsing is possible, an attacker may be able to directly access a sensitive page by entering a URL similar to the following. (attack code)
Example Language: JSP
http://somesite.com/someapplication/admin.jsp
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.
Relationship
Overlaps Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID), authorization errors, container errors; often primary to other weaknesses such as XSS and SQL injection.
Theoretical
"Forced browsing" is a step-based manipulation involving the omission of one or more steps, whose order is assumed to be immutable. The application does not verify that the first step was performed successfully before the second step. The consequence is typically "authentication bypass" or "path disclosure," although it can be primary to all kinds of weaknesses, especially in languages such as PHP, which allow external modification of assumed-immutable variables.
CWE-369: Divide By Zero
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
This weakness typically occurs when an unexpected value is provided to the product, or if an error occurs that is not properly detected. It frequently occurs in calculations involving physical dimensions such as size, length, width, and height.
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following Java example contains a function to compute an average but does not validate that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an exception for attempting to divide by zero. If this error is not handled by Java exception handling, unexpected results can occur. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public int computeAverageResponseTime (int totalTime, int numRequests) {
return totalTime / numRequests; }By validating the input value used as the denominator the following code will ensure that a divide by zero error will not cause unexpected results. The following Java code example will validate the input value, output an error message, and throw an exception. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public int computeAverageResponseTime (int totalTime, int numRequests) throws ArithmeticException {
if (numRequests == 0) { }System.out.println("Division by zero attempted!"); }throw ArithmeticException; return totalTime / numRequests; Example 2 The following C/C++ example contains a function that divides two numeric values without verifying that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an error for attempting to divide by zero, if this error is not caught by the error handling capabilities of the language, unexpected results can occur. (bad code)
Example Language: C
double divide(double x, double y){
return x/y; }By validating the input value used as the denominator the following code will ensure that a divide by zero error will not cause unexpected results. If the method is called and a zero is passed as the second argument a DivideByZero error will be thrown and should be caught by the calling block with an output message indicating the error. (good code)
Example Language: C
const int DivideByZero = 10;
double divide(double x, double y){ if ( 0 == y ){ }throw DivideByZero; }return x/y; ... try{ divide(10, 0); }catch( int i ){ if(i==DivideByZero) { }cerr<<"Divide by zero error"; }
Example 3 The following C# example contains a function that divides two numeric values without verifying that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an error for attempting to divide by zero, if this error is not caught by the error handling capabilities of the language, unexpected results can occur. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
int Division(int x, int y){
return (x / y); }The method can be modified to raise, catch and handle the DivideByZeroException if the input value used as the denominator is zero. (good code)
Example Language: C#
int SafeDivision(int x, int y){
try{ }return (x / y); }catch (System.DivideByZeroException dbz){ System.Console.WriteLine("Division by zero attempted!"); }return 0;
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.
CWE-415: Double Free
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 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.
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.
Example 1 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:
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. Example 2 While contrived, this code should be exploitable on Linux distributions that do not ship with heap-chunk check summing turned on. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h> #define BUFSIZE1 512 #define BUFSIZE2 ((BUFSIZE1/2) - 8) int main(int argc, char **argv) { char *buf1R1; }char *buf2R1; char *buf1R2; buf1R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE2); buf2R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE2); free(buf1R1); free(buf2R1); buf1R2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE1); strncpy(buf1R2, argv[1], BUFSIZE1-1); free(buf2R1); free(buf1R2); 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.
Relationship
This is usually resultant from another weakness, such as an unhandled error or race condition between threads. It could also be primary to weaknesses such as buffer overflows.
Theoretical
It could be argued that Double Free would be most appropriately located as a child of "Use after Free", but "Use" and "Release" are considered to be distinct operations within vulnerability theory, therefore this is more accurately "Release of a Resource after Expiration or Release", which doesn't exist yet.
CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check
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 downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
An attacker can execute malicious code by compromising the host server, performing DNS spoofing, or modifying the code in transit.
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This example loads an external class from a local subdirectory. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
URL[] classURLs= new URL[]{
new URL("file:subdir/") };URLClassLoader loader = new URLClassLoader(classURLs); Class loadedClass = Class.forName("loadMe", true, loader); This code does not ensure that the class loaded is the intended one, for example by verifying the class's checksum. An attacker may be able to modify the class file to execute malicious code. Example 2 This code includes an external script to get database credentials, then authenticates a user against the database, allowing access to the application. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
//assume the password is already encrypted, avoiding CWE-312
function authenticate($username,$password){ include("http://external.example.com/dbInfo.php"); //dbInfo.php makes $dbhost, $dbuser, $dbpass, $dbname available mysql_connect($dbhost, $dbuser, $dbpass) or die ('Error connecting to mysql'); mysql_select_db($dbname); $query = 'Select * from users where username='.$username.' And password='.$password; $result = mysql_query($query); if(mysql_numrows($result) == 1){ mysql_close(); }return true; else{ mysql_close(); }return false; } This code does not verify that the external domain accessed is the intended one. An attacker may somehow cause the external domain name to resolve to an attack server, which would provide the information for a false database. The attacker may then steal the usernames and encrypted passwords from real user login attempts, or simply allow themself to access the application without a real user account. This example is also vulnerable to an Adversary-in-the-Middle AITM (CWE-300) attack. 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.
Research Gap
This is critical for mobile code, but it is likely to become more and more common as developers continue to adopt automated, network-based product distributions and upgrades. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) might introduce additional subtleties. Common exploitation scenarios may include ad server compromises and bad upgrades.
CWE-834: Excessive Iteration
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 performs an iteration or loop without sufficiently limiting the number of times that the loop is executed.
If the iteration can be influenced by an attacker, this weakness could allow attackers to consume excessive resources such as CPU or memory. In many cases, a loop does not need to be infinite in order to cause enough resource consumption to adversely affect the product or its host system; it depends on the amount of resources consumed per iteration.
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)
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.
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.
Example 1 In this example a mistake exists in the code where the exit condition contained in flg is never called. This results in the function calling itself over and over again until the stack is exhausted. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void do_something_recursive (int flg)
{
... // Do some real work here, but the value of flg is unmodified
}if (flg) { do_something_recursive (flg); } // flg is never modified so it is always TRUE - this call will continue until the stack explodes int flag = 1; // Set to TRUE do_something_recursive (flag); Note that the only difference between the Good and Bad examples is that the recursion flag will change value and cause the recursive call to return. (good code)
Example Language: C
void do_something_recursive (int flg)
{
... // Do some real work here
}// Modify value of flg on done condition if (flg) { do_something_recursive (flg); } // returns when flg changes to 0 int flag = 1; // Set to TRUE do_something_recursive (flag); Example 2 For this example, the method isReorderNeeded is part of a bookstore application that determines if a particular book needs to be reordered based on the current inventory count and the rate at which the book is being sold. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean isReorderNeeded(String bookISBN, int rateSold) {
boolean isReorder = false; int minimumCount = 10; int days = 0; // get inventory count for book int inventoryCount = inventory.getIventoryCount(bookISBN); // find number of days until inventory count reaches minimum while (inventoryCount > minimumCount) { inventoryCount = inventoryCount - rateSold; days++; // if number of days within reorder timeframe // set reorder return boolean to true if (days > 0 && days < 5) { isReorder = true; }return isReorder; However, the while loop will become an infinite loop if the rateSold input parameter has a value of zero since the inventoryCount will never fall below the minimumCount. In this case the input parameter should be validated to ensure that a value of zero does not cause an infinite loop, as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public boolean isReorderNeeded(String bookISBN, int rateSold) {
...
// validate rateSold variable if (rateSold < 1) { return isReorder; }... 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.
CWE-668: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
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 exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
Resources such as files and directories may be inadvertently exposed through mechanisms such as insecure permissions, or when a program accidentally operates on the wrong object. For example, a program may intend that private files can only be provided to a specific user. This effectively defines a control sphere that is intended to prevent attackers from accessing these private files. If the file permissions are insecure, then parties other than the user will be able to access those files. A separate control sphere might effectively require that the user can only access the private files, but not any other files on the system. If the program does not ensure that the user is only requesting private files, then the user might be able to access other files on the system. In either case, the end result is that a resource has been exposed to the wrong party. 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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
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.
Theoretical
A "control sphere" is a set of resources and behaviors that are accessible to a single actor, or a group of actors. A product's security model will typically define multiple spheres, possibly implicitly. For example, a server might define one sphere for "administrators" who can create new user accounts with subdirectories under /home/server/, and a second sphere might cover the set of users who can create or delete files within their own subdirectories. A third sphere might be "users who are authenticated to the operating system on which the product is installed." Each sphere has different sets of actors and allowable behaviors.
CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
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 exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
There are many different kinds of mistakes that introduce information exposures. The severity of the error can range widely, depending on the context in which the product operates, the type of sensitive information that is revealed, and the benefits it may provide to an attacker. Some kinds of sensitive information include:
Information might be sensitive to different parties, each of which may have their own expectations for whether the information should be protected. These parties include:
Information exposures can occur in different ways:
It is common practice to describe any loss of confidentiality as an "information exposure," but this can lead to overuse of CWE-200 in CWE mapping. From the CWE perspective, loss of confidentiality is a technical impact that can arise from dozens of different weaknesses, such as insecure file permissions or out-of-bounds read. CWE-200 and its lower-level descendants are intended to cover the mistakes that occur in behaviors that explicitly manage, store, transfer, or cleanse sensitive information.
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)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code checks validity of the supplied username and password and notifies the user of a successful or failed login. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $username=param('username');
my $password=param('password'); if (IsValidUsername($username) == 1) { if (IsValidPassword($username, $password) == 1)
}
{ print "Login Successful";
}
else { print "Login Failed - incorrect password";
}
else { print "Login Failed - unknown username";
}
In the above code, there are different messages for when an incorrect username is supplied, versus when the username is correct but the password is wrong. This difference enables a potential attacker to understand the state of the login function, and could allow an attacker to discover a valid username by trying different values until the incorrect password message is returned. In essence, this makes it easier for an attacker to obtain half of the necessary authentication credentials. While this type of information may be helpful to a user, it is also useful to a potential attacker. In the above example, the message for both failed cases should be the same, such as: (result)
"Login Failed - incorrect username or password"
Example 2 This code tries to open a database connection, and prints any exceptions that occur. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
try {
openDbConnection(); }//print exception message that includes exception message and configuration file location catch (Exception $e) { echo 'Caught exception: ', $e->getMessage(), '\n'; }echo 'Check credentials in config file at: ', $Mysql_config_location, '\n'; If an exception occurs, the printed message exposes the location of the configuration file the script is using. An attacker can use this information to target the configuration file (perhaps exploiting a Path Traversal weakness). If the file can be read, the attacker could gain credentials for accessing the database. The attacker may also be able to replace the file with a malicious one, causing the application to use an arbitrary database. Example 3 In the example below, the method getUserBankAccount retrieves a bank account object from a database using the supplied username and account number to query the database. If an SQLException is raised when querying the database, an error message is created and output to a log file. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public BankAccount getUserBankAccount(String username, String accountNumber) {
BankAccount userAccount = null;
String query = null; try { if (isAuthorizedUser(username)) { } catch (SQLException ex) {query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE owner = " }+ username + " AND accountID = " + accountNumber; DatabaseManager dbManager = new DatabaseManager(); Connection conn = dbManager.getConnection(); Statement stmt = conn.createStatement(); ResultSet queryResult = stmt.executeQuery(query); userAccount = (BankAccount)queryResult.getObject(accountNumber); String logMessage = "Unable to retrieve account information from database,\nquery: " + query; }Logger.getLogger(BankManager.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, logMessage, ex); return userAccount; The error message that is created includes information about the database query that may contain sensitive information about the database or query logic. In this case, the error message will expose the table name and column names used in the database. This data could be used to simplify other attacks, such as SQL injection (CWE-89) to directly access the database. Example 4 This code stores location information about the current user: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
locationClient = new LocationClient(this, this, this);
locationClient.connect(); currentUser.setLocation(locationClient.getLastLocation()); ... catch (Exception e) { AlertDialog.Builder builder = new AlertDialog.Builder(this); }builder.setMessage("Sorry, this application has experienced an error."); AlertDialog alert = builder.create(); alert.show(); Log.e("ExampleActivity", "Caught exception: " + e + " While on User:" + User.toString()); When the application encounters an exception it will write the user object to the log. Because the user object contains location information, the user's location is also written to the log. Example 5 The following is an actual MySQL error statement: (result)
Example Language: SQL
Warning: mysql_pconnect(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: N1nj4) in /usr/local/www/wi-data/includes/database.inc on line 4
The error clearly exposes the database credentials. Example 6 This code displays some information on a web page. (bad code)
Example Language: JSP
Social Security Number: <%= ssn %></br>Credit Card Number: <%= ccn %>
The code displays a user's credit card and social security numbers, even though they aren't absolutely necessary. Example 7 The following program changes its behavior based on a debug flag. (bad code)
Example Language: JSP
<% if (Boolean.getBoolean("debugEnabled")) {
%>
User account number: <%= acctNo %> <% } %> The code writes sensitive debug information to the client browser if the "debugEnabled" flag is set to true . Example 8 This code uses location to determine the user's current US State location. First the application must declare that it requires the ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION permission in the application's manifest.xml: (bad code)
Example Language: XML
<uses-permission android:name="android.permission.ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION"/>
During execution, a call to getLastLocation() will return a location based on the application's location permissions. In this case the application has permission for the most accurate location possible: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
locationClient = new LocationClient(this, this, this);
locationClient.connect(); Location userCurrLocation; userCurrLocation = locationClient.getLastLocation(); deriveStateFromCoords(userCurrLocation); While the application needs this information, it does not need to use the ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION permission, as the ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION permission will be sufficient to identify which US state the user is in. 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
As a result of mapping analysis in the 2020 Top 25 and more recent versions, this weakness is under review, since it is frequently misused in mapping to cover many problems that lead to loss of confidentiality. See Mapping Notes, Extended Description, and Alternate Terms.
CWE-610: Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere
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 uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.
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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code is a Java servlet that will receive a GET request with a url parameter in the request to redirect the browser to the address specified in the url parameter. The servlet will retrieve the url parameter value from the request and send a response to redirect the browser to the url address. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class RedirectServlet extends HttpServlet {
protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {
String query = request.getQueryString(); }if (query.contains("url")) { String url = request.getParameter("url"); }response.sendRedirect(url); The problem with this Java servlet code is that an attacker could use the RedirectServlet as part of an e-mail phishing scam to redirect users to a malicious site. An attacker could send an HTML formatted e-mail directing the user to log into their account by including in the e-mail the following link: (attack code)
Example Language: HTML
<a href="http://bank.example.com/redirect?url=http://attacker.example.net">Click here to log in</a>
The user may assume that the link is safe since the URL starts with their trusted bank, bank.example.com. However, the user will then be redirected to the attacker's web site (attacker.example.net) which the attacker may have made to appear very similar to bank.example.com. The user may then unwittingly enter credentials into the attacker's web page and compromise their bank account. A Java servlet should never redirect a user to a URL without verifying that the redirect address is a trusted site. 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.
Relationship
This is a general class of weakness, but most research is focused on more specialized cases, such as path traversal (CWE-22) and symlink following (CWE-61). A symbolic link has a name; in general, it appears like any other file in the file system. However, the link includes a reference to another file, often in another directory - perhaps in another sphere of control. Many common library functions that accept filenames will "follow" a symbolic link and use the link's target instead.
Maintenance
The relationship between CWE-99 and CWE-610 needs further investigation and clarification. They might be duplicates. CWE-99 "Resource Injection," as originally defined in Seven Pernicious Kingdoms taxonomy, emphasizes the "identifier used to access a system resource" such as a file name or port number, yet it explicitly states that the "resource injection" term does not apply to "path manipulation," which effectively identifies the path at which a resource can be found and could be considered to be one aspect of a resource identifier. Also, CWE-610 effectively covers any type of resource, whether that resource is at the system layer, the application layer, or the code layer.
CWE-552: Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties
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 makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.
Web servers, FTP servers, and similar servers may store a set of files underneath a "root" directory that is accessible to the server's users. Applications may store sensitive files underneath this root without also using access control to limit which users may request those files, if any. Alternately, an application might package multiple files or directories into an archive file (e.g., ZIP or tar), but the application might not exclude sensitive files that are underneath those directories. In cloud technologies and containers, this weakness might present itself in the form of misconfigured storage accounts that can be read or written by a public or anonymous user. 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following Azure command updates the settings for a storage account: (bad code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage account update --name <storage-account> --resource-group <resource-group> --allow-blob-public-access true
However, "Allow Blob Public Access" is set to true, meaning that anonymous/public users can access blobs. The command could be modified to disable "Allow Blob Public Access" by setting it to false. (good code)
Example Language: Shell
az storage account update --name <storage-account> --resource-group <resource-group> --allow-blob-public-access false
Example 2 The following Google Cloud Storage command gets the settings for a storage account named 'BUCKET_NAME': (informative)
Example Language: Shell
gsutil iam get gs://BUCKET_NAME
Suppose the command returns the following result: (bad code)
Example Language: JSON
{
"bindings":[{
}
"members":[
},
"projectEditor: PROJECT-ID",
],"projectOwner: PROJECT-ID" "role":"roles/storage.legacyBucketOwner" {
"members":[
]
"allUsers",
}"projectViewer: PROJECT-ID" ], "role":"roles/storage.legacyBucketReader" This result includes the "allUsers" or IAM role added as members, causing this policy configuration to allow public access to cloud storage resources. There would be a similar concern if "allAuthenticatedUsers" was present. The command could be modified to remove "allUsers" and/or "allAuthenticatedUsers" as follows: (good code)
Example Language: Shell
gsutil iam ch -d allUsers gs://BUCKET_NAME
gsutil iam ch -d allAuthenticatedUsers gs://BUCKET_NAME 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.
CWE-209: Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information
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 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 In the following example, sensitive information might be printed depending on the exception that occurs. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
try {
/.../ }catch (Exception e) { System.out.println(e); }If an exception related to SQL is handled by the catch, then the output might contain sensitive information such as SQL query structure or private information. If this output is redirected to a web user, this may represent a security problem. Example 2 This code tries to open a database connection, and prints any exceptions that occur. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
try {
openDbConnection(); }//print exception message that includes exception message and configuration file location catch (Exception $e) { echo 'Caught exception: ', $e->getMessage(), '\n'; }echo 'Check credentials in config file at: ', $Mysql_config_location, '\n'; If an exception occurs, the printed message exposes the location of the configuration file the script is using. An attacker can use this information to target the configuration file (perhaps exploiting a Path Traversal weakness). If the file can be read, the attacker could gain credentials for accessing the database. The attacker may also be able to replace the file with a malicious one, causing the application to use an arbitrary database. Example 3 The following code generates an error message that leaks the full pathname of the configuration file. If this code is running on a server, such as a web application, then the person making the request should not know what the full pathname of the configuration directory is. By submitting a username that does not produce a $file that exists, an attacker could get this pathname. It could then be used to exploit path traversal or symbolic link following problems that may exist elsewhere in the application. Example 4 In the example below, the method getUserBankAccount retrieves a bank account object from a database using the supplied username and account number to query the database. If an SQLException is raised when querying the database, an error message is created and output to a log file. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public BankAccount getUserBankAccount(String username, String accountNumber) {
BankAccount userAccount = null;
String query = null; try { if (isAuthorizedUser(username)) { } catch (SQLException ex) {query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE owner = " }+ username + " AND accountID = " + accountNumber; DatabaseManager dbManager = new DatabaseManager(); Connection conn = dbManager.getConnection(); Statement stmt = conn.createStatement(); ResultSet queryResult = stmt.executeQuery(query); userAccount = (BankAccount)queryResult.getObject(accountNumber); String logMessage = "Unable to retrieve account information from database,\nquery: " + query; }Logger.getLogger(BankManager.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, logMessage, ex); return userAccount; The error message that is created includes information about the database query that may contain sensitive information about the database or query logic. In this case, the error message will expose the table name and column names used in the database. This data could be used to simplify other attacks, such as SQL injection (CWE-89) to directly access the database. 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.
Other The sensitive information may be valuable information on its own (such as a password), or it may be useful for launching other, more serious attacks. The error message may be created in different ways:
CWE-287: Improper Authentication
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
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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 The following code intends to ensure that the user is already logged in. If not, the code performs authentication with the user-provided username and password. If successful, it sets the loggedin and user cookies to "remember" that the user has already logged in. Finally, the code performs administrator tasks if the logged-in user has the "Administrator" username, as recorded in the user cookie. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $q = new CGI;
if ($q->cookie('loggedin') ne "true") { if (! AuthenticateUser($q->param('username'), $q->param('password'))) {
ExitError("Error: you need to log in first"); }else { # Set loggedin and user cookies.
$q->cookie( -name => 'loggedin',
-value => 'true' ); $q->cookie( -name => 'user',
-value => $q->param('username') ); if ($q->cookie('user') eq "Administrator") { DoAdministratorTasks(); }Unfortunately, this code can be bypassed. The attacker can set the cookies independently so that the code does not check the username and password. The attacker could do this with an HTTP request containing headers such as: (attack code)
GET /cgi-bin/vulnerable.cgi HTTP/1.1
Cookie: user=Administrator Cookie: loggedin=true [body of request] By setting the loggedin cookie to "true", the attacker bypasses the entire authentication check. By using the "Administrator" value in the user cookie, the attacker also gains privileges to administer the software. Example 2 In January 2009, an attacker was able to gain administrator access to a Twitter server because the server did not restrict the number of login attempts [REF-236]. The attacker targeted a member of Twitter's support team and was able to successfully guess the member's password using a brute force attack by guessing a large number of common words. After gaining access as the member of the support staff, the attacker used the administrator panel to gain access to 33 accounts that belonged to celebrities and politicians. Ultimately, fake Twitter messages were sent that appeared to come from the compromised accounts.
Example 3 In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications. Multiple vendors did not use any authentication or used client-side authentication for critical functionality in their OT products. 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.
CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation
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 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code checks the certificate of a connected peer. (bad code)
Example Language: C
if ((cert = SSL_get_peer_certificate(ssl)) && host)
foo=SSL_get_verify_result(ssl);
if ((X509_V_OK==foo) || X509_V_ERR_SELF_SIGNED_CERT_IN_CHAIN==foo)) // certificate looks good, host can be trusted In this case, because the certificate is self-signed, there was no external authority that could prove the identity of the host. The program could be communicating with a different system that is spoofing the host, e.g. by poisoning the DNS cache or using an Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack to modify the traffic from server to client. Example 2 The following OpenSSL code obtains a certificate and verifies it. (bad code)
Example Language: C
cert = SSL_get_peer_certificate(ssl);
if (cert && (SSL_get_verify_result(ssl)==X509_V_OK)) { // do secret things Even though the "verify" step returns X509_V_OK, this step does not include checking the Common Name against the name of the host. That is, there is no guarantee that the certificate is for the desired host. The SSL connection could have been established with a malicious host that provided a valid certificate. Example 3 The following OpenSSL code ensures that there is a certificate and allows the use of expired certificates. (bad code)
Example Language: C
if (cert = SSL_get_peer(certificate(ssl)) {
foo=SSL_get_verify_result(ssl);
if ((X509_V_OK==foo) || (X509_V_ERR_CERT_HAS_EXPIRED==foo)) //do stuff If the call to SSL_get_verify_result() returns X509_V_ERR_CERT_HAS_EXPIRED, this means that the certificate has expired. As time goes on, there is an increasing chance for attackers to compromise the certificate. Example 4 The following OpenSSL code ensures that there is a certificate before continuing execution. (bad code)
Example Language: C
if (cert = SSL_get_peer_certificate(ssl)) {
// got a certificate, do secret things Because this code does not use SSL_get_verify_results() to check the certificate, it could accept certificates that have been revoked (X509_V_ERR_CERT_REVOKED). The software could be communicating with a malicious host. Example 5 The following OpenSSL code ensures that the host has a certificate. (bad code)
Example Language: C
if (cert = SSL_get_peer_certificate(ssl)) {
// got certificate, host can be trusted //foo=SSL_get_verify_result(ssl); //if (X509_V_OK==foo) ... Note that the code does not call SSL_get_verify_result(ssl), which effectively disables the validation step that checks the certificate. 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.
CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges
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 attempts to drop privileges but does not check or incorrectly checks to see if the drop succeeded.
If the drop fails, the product will continue to run with the raised privileges, which might provide additional access to unprivileged users.
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code attempts to take on the privileges of a user before creating a file, thus avoiding performing the action with unnecessarily high privileges: (bad code)
Example Language: C++
bool DoSecureStuff(HANDLE hPipe) {
bool fDataWritten = false; }ImpersonateNamedPipeClient(hPipe); HANDLE hFile = CreateFile(...); /../ RevertToSelf() /../ The call to ImpersonateNamedPipeClient may fail, but the return value is not checked. If the call fails, the code may execute with higher privileges than intended. In this case, an attacker could exploit this behavior to write a file to a location that the attacker does not have access to. 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.
CWE-754: Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions
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 check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
The programmer may assume that certain events or conditions will never occur or do not need to be worried about, such as low memory conditions, lack of access to resources due to restrictive permissions, or misbehaving clients or components. However, attackers may intentionally trigger these unusual conditions, thus violating the programmer's assumptions, possibly introducing instability, incorrect behavior, or a vulnerability. Note that this entry is not exclusively about the use of exceptions and exception handling, which are mechanisms for both checking and handling unusual or unexpected conditions. 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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 Consider the following code segment: (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[10], cp_buf[10];
fgets(buf, 10, stdin); strcpy(cp_buf, buf); The programmer expects that when fgets() returns, buf will contain a null-terminated string of length 9 or less. But if an I/O error occurs, fgets() will not null-terminate buf. Furthermore, if the end of the file is reached before any characters are read, fgets() returns without writing anything to buf. In both of these situations, fgets() signals that something unusual has happened by returning NULL, but in this code, the warning will not be noticed. The lack of a null terminator in buf can result in a buffer overflow in the subsequent call to strcpy(). Example 2 The following code does not check to see if memory allocation succeeded before attempting to use the pointer returned by malloc(). (bad code)
Example Language: C
buf = (char*) malloc(req_size);
strncpy(buf, xfer, req_size); The traditional defense of this coding error is: "If my program runs out of memory, it will fail. It doesn't matter whether I handle the error or simply allow the program to die with a segmentation fault when it tries to dereference the null pointer." This argument ignores three important considerations:
Example 3 The following examples read a file into a byte array. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
char[] byteArray = new char[1024];
for (IEnumerator i=users.GetEnumerator(); i.MoveNext() ;i.Current()) { String userName = (String) i.Current(); }String pFileName = PFILE_ROOT + "/" + userName; StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(pFileName); sr.Read(byteArray,0,1024);//the file is always 1k bytes sr.Close(); processPFile(userName, byteArray); (bad code)
Example Language: Java
FileInputStream fis;
byte[] byteArray = new byte[1024]; for (Iterator i=users.iterator(); i.hasNext();) { String userName = (String) i.next();
String pFileName = PFILE_ROOT + "/" + userName; FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(pFileName); fis.read(byteArray); // the file is always 1k bytes fis.close(); processPFile(userName, byteArray); The code loops through a set of users, reading a private data file for each user. The programmer assumes that the files are always 1 kilobyte in size and therefore ignores the return value from Read(). If an attacker can create a smaller file, the program will recycle the remainder of the data from the previous user and treat it as though it belongs to the attacker. Example 4 The following code does not check to see if the string returned by getParameter() is null before calling the member function compareTo(), potentially causing a NULL dereference. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String itemName = request.getParameter(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.compareTo(IMPORTANT_ITEM) == 0) { ... }... The following code does not check to see if the string returned by the Item property is null before calling the member function Equals(), potentially causing a NULL dereference. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String itemName = request.Item(ITEM_NAME);
if (itemName.Equals(IMPORTANT_ITEM)) { ... }... The traditional defense of this coding error is: "I know the requested value will always exist because.... If it does not exist, the program cannot perform the desired behavior so it doesn't matter whether I handle the error or simply allow the program to die dereferencing a null value." But attackers are skilled at finding unexpected paths through programs, particularly when exceptions are involved. Example 5 The following code shows a system property that is set to null and later dereferenced by a programmer who mistakenly assumes it will always be defined. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
System.clearProperty("os.name");
... String os = System.getProperty("os.name"); if (os.equalsIgnoreCase("Windows 95")) System.out.println("Not supported"); The traditional defense of this coding error is: "I know the requested value will always exist because.... If it does not exist, the program cannot perform the desired behavior so it doesn't matter whether I handle the error or simply allow the program to die dereferencing a null value." But attackers are skilled at finding unexpected paths through programs, particularly when exceptions are involved. Example 6 The following VB.NET code does not check to make sure that it has read 50 bytes from myfile.txt. This can cause DoDangerousOperation() to operate on an unexpected value. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
Dim MyFile As New FileStream("myfile.txt", FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.Read)
Dim MyArray(50) As Byte MyFile.Read(MyArray, 0, 50) DoDangerousOperation(MyArray(20)) In .NET, it is not uncommon for programmers to misunderstand Read() and related methods that are part of many System.IO classes. The stream and reader classes do not consider it to be unusual or exceptional if only a small amount of data becomes available. These classes simply add the small amount of data to the return buffer, and set the return value to the number of bytes or characters read. There is no guarantee that the amount of data returned is equal to the amount of data requested. Example 7 This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and 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); If an attacker provides an address that appears to be well-formed, but the address does not resolve to a hostname, then the call to gethostbyaddr() will return NULL. Since the code does not check the return value from gethostbyaddr (CWE-252), a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476) would then occur in the call to strcpy(). Note that this code is also vulnerable to a buffer overflow (CWE-119). Example 8 In the following C/C++ example the method outputStringToFile opens a file in the local filesystem and outputs a string to the file. The input parameters output and filename contain the string to output to the file and the name of the file respectively. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
int outputStringToFile(char *output, char *filename) {
openFileToWrite(filename); writeToFile(output); closeFile(filename); However, this code does not check the return values of the methods openFileToWrite, writeToFile, closeFile to verify that the file was properly opened and closed and that the string was successfully written to the file. The return values for these methods should be checked to determine if the method was successful and allow for detection of errors or unexpected conditions as in the following example. (good code)
Example Language: C++
int outputStringToFile(char *output, char *filename) {
int isOutput = SUCCESS;
int isOpen = openFileToWrite(filename); if (isOpen == FAIL) { printf("Unable to open file %s", filename); }isOutput = FAIL; else { int isWrite = writeToFile(output);
if (isWrite == FAIL) { printf("Unable to write to file %s", filename); }isOutput = FAIL; int isClose = closeFile(filename); if (isClose == FAIL) isOutput = FAIL;
return isOutput; Example 9 In the following Java example the method readFromFile uses a FileReader object to read the contents of a file. The FileReader object is created using the File object readFile, the readFile object is initialized using the setInputFile method. The setInputFile method should be called before calling the readFromFile method. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
private File readFile = null;
public void setInputFile(String inputFile) { // create readFile File object from string containing name of file public void readFromFile() { try {
reader = new FileReader(readFile);
// read input file However, the readFromFile method does not check to see if the readFile object is null, i.e. has not been initialized, before creating the FileReader object and reading from the input file. The readFromFile method should verify whether the readFile object is null and output an error message and raise an exception if the readFile object is null, as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: Java
private File readFile = null;
public void setInputFile(String inputFile) { // create readFile File object from string containing name of file public void readFromFile() { try {
if (readFile == null) {
System.err.println("Input file has not been set, call setInputFile method before calling openInputFile"); }throw NullPointerException; reader = new FileReader(readFile); // read input file catch (NullPointerException ex) {...} 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.
Relationship
Sometimes, when a return value can be used to indicate an error, an unchecked return value is a code-layer instance of a missing application-layer check for exceptional conditions. However, return values are not always needed to communicate exceptional conditions. For example, expiration of resources, values passed by reference, asynchronously modified data, sockets, etc. may indicate exceptional conditions without the use of a return value.
CWE-913: Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
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 restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or executable instructions or statements.
Many languages offer powerful features that allow the programmer to dynamically create or modify existing code, or resources used by code such as variables and objects. While these features can offer significant flexibility and reduce development time, they can be extremely dangerous if attackers can directly influence these code resources in unexpected ways.
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)
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.
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.
Example 1 This example attempts to write user messages to a message file and allow users to view them. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$MessageFile = "messages.out";
if ($_GET["action"] == "NewMessage") { $name = $_GET["name"]; }$message = $_GET["message"]; $handle = fopen($MessageFile, "a+"); fwrite($handle, "<b>$name</b> says '$message'<hr>\n"); fclose($handle); echo "Message Saved!<p>\n"; else if ($_GET["action"] == "ViewMessages") { include($MessageFile); }While the programmer intends for the MessageFile to only include data, an attacker can provide a message such as: (attack code)
name=h4x0r
message=%3C?php%20system(%22/bin/ls%20-l%22);?%3E which will decode to the following: (attack code)
<?php system("/bin/ls -l");?>
The programmer thought they were just including the contents of a regular data file, but PHP parsed it and executed the code. Now, this code is executed any time people view messages. Notice that XSS (CWE-79) is also possible in this situation. Example 2 A common reason that programmers use the reflection API is to implement their own command dispatcher. The following example shows a command dispatcher that does not use reflection: (good code)
Example Language: Java
String ctl = request.getParameter("ctl");
Worker ao = null; if (ctl.equals("Add")) {
ao = new AddCommand();
}else if (ctl.equals("Modify")) {
ao = new ModifyCommand();
}else {
throw new UnknownActionError();
}
ao.doAction(request); A programmer might refactor this code to use reflection as follows: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String ctl = request.getParameter("ctl");
Class cmdClass = Class.forName(ctl + "Command"); Worker ao = (Worker) cmdClass.newInstance(); ao.doAction(request);
The refactoring initially appears to offer a number of advantages. There are fewer lines of code, the if/else blocks have been entirely eliminated, and it is now possible to add new command types without modifying the command dispatcher. However, the refactoring allows an attacker to instantiate any object that implements the Worker interface. If the command dispatcher is still responsible for access control, then whenever programmers create a new class that implements the Worker interface, they must remember to modify the dispatcher's access control code. If they do not modify the access control code, then some Worker classes will not have any access control. One way to address this access control problem is to make the Worker object responsible for performing the access control check. An example of the re-refactored code follows: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String ctl = request.getParameter("ctl");
Class cmdClass = Class.forName(ctl + "Command"); Worker ao = (Worker) cmdClass.newInstance(); ao.checkAccessControl(request); ao.doAction(request); Although this is an improvement, it encourages a decentralized approach to access control, which makes it easier for programmers to make access control mistakes. This code also highlights another security problem with using reflection to build a command dispatcher. An attacker can invoke the default constructor for any kind of object. In fact, the attacker is not even constrained to objects that implement the Worker interface; the default constructor for any object in the system can be invoked. If the object does not implement the Worker interface, a ClassCastException will be thrown before the assignment to ao, but if the constructor performs operations that work in the attacker's favor, the damage will already have been done. Although this scenario is relatively benign in simple products, in larger products where complexity grows exponentially, it is not unreasonable that an attacker could find a constructor to leverage as part of an attack. 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.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
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 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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
Example 1 This example attempts to write user messages to a message file and allow users to view them. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$MessageFile = "messages.out";
if ($_GET["action"] == "NewMessage") { $name = $_GET["name"]; }$message = $_GET["message"]; $handle = fopen($MessageFile, "a+"); fwrite($handle, "<b>$name</b> says '$message'<hr>\n"); fclose($handle); echo "Message Saved!<p>\n"; else if ($_GET["action"] == "ViewMessages") { include($MessageFile); }While the programmer intends for the MessageFile to only include data, an attacker can provide a message such as: (attack code)
name=h4x0r
message=%3C?php%20system(%22/bin/ls%20-l%22);?%3E which will decode to the following: (attack code)
<?php system("/bin/ls -l");?>
The programmer thought they were just including the contents of a regular data file, but PHP parsed it and executed the code. Now, this code is executed any time people view messages. Notice that XSS (CWE-79) is also possible in this situation. Example 2 edit-config.pl: This CGI script is used to modify settings in a configuration file. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
use CGI qw(:standard);
sub config_file_add_key { my ($fname, $key, $arg) = @_;
# code to add a field/key to a file goes here sub config_file_set_key { my ($fname, $key, $arg) = @_;
# code to set key to a particular file goes here sub config_file_delete_key { my ($fname, $key, $arg) = @_;
# code to delete key from a particular file goes here sub handleConfigAction { my ($fname, $action) = @_;
my $key = param('key'); my $val = param('val'); # this is super-efficient code, especially if you have to invoke # any one of dozens of different functions! my $code = "config_file_$action_key(\$fname, \$key, \$val);"; eval($code); $configfile = "/home/cwe/config.txt"; print header; if (defined(param('action'))) { handleConfigAction($configfile, param('action')); }else { print "No action specified!\n"; }The script intends to take the 'action' parameter and invoke one of a variety of functions based on the value of that parameter - config_file_add_key(), config_file_set_key(), or config_file_delete_key(). It could set up a conditional to invoke each function separately, but eval() is a powerful way of doing the same thing in fewer lines of code, especially when a large number of functions or variables are involved. Unfortunately, in this case, the attacker can provide other values in the action parameter, such as: (attack code)
add_key(",","); system("/bin/ls");
This would produce the following string in handleConfigAction(): (result)
config_file_add_key(",","); system("/bin/ls");
Any arbitrary Perl code could be added after the attacker has "closed off" the construction of the original function call, in order to prevent parsing errors from causing the malicious eval() to fail before the attacker's payload is activated. This particular manipulation would fail after the system() call, because the "_key(\$fname, \$key, \$val)" portion of the string would cause an error, but this is irrelevant to the attack because the payload has already been activated. Example 3 This simple python3 script asks a user to supply a comma-separated list of numbers as input and adds them together. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
def main():
sum = 0
main()
try:
numbers = eval(input("Enter a comma-separated list of numbers: "))
except SyntaxError:
print("Error: invalid input")
for num in numbers:return
sum = sum + num
print(f"Sum of {numbers} = {sum}")
The eval() function can take the user-supplied list and convert it into a Python list object, therefore allowing the programmer to use list comprehension methods to work with the data. However, if code is supplied to the eval() function, it will execute that code. For example, a malicious user could supply the following string: (attack code)
__import__('subprocess').getoutput('rm -r *')
This would delete all the files in the current directory. For this reason, it is not recommended to use eval() with untrusted input. A way to accomplish this without the use of eval() is to apply an integer conversion on the input within a try/except block. If the user-supplied input is not numeric, this will raise a ValueError. By avoiding eval(), there is no opportunity for the input string to be executed as code. (good code)
Example Language: Python
def main():
sum = 0
main()
numbers = input("Enter a comma-separated list of numbers: ").split(",") try:
for num in numbers:
except ValueError:
sum = sum + int(num)
print(f"Sum of {numbers} = {sum}")
print("Error: invalid input")
An alternative, commonly-cited mitigation for this kind of weakness is to use the ast.literal_eval() function, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373]. Example 4 The following code is a workflow job written using YAML. The code attempts to download pull request artifacts, unzip from the artifact called pr.zip and extract the value of the file NR into a variable "pr_number" that will be used later in another job. It attempts to create a github workflow environment variable, writing to $GITHUB_ENV. The environment variable value is retrieved from an external resource. (bad code)
Example Language: Other
name: Deploy Preview
jobs:
deploy:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- name: 'Download artifact'
uses: actions/github-script with:
script: |
- run: |
var artifacts = await github.actions.listWorkflowRunArtifacts({
owner: context.repo.owner,
});repo: context.repo.repo, run_id: ${{ github.event.workflow_run.id }}, var matchPrArtifact = artifacts.data.artifacts.filter((artifact) => {
return artifact.name == "pr"
})[0];var downloadPr = await github.actions.downloadArtifact({
owner: context.repo.owner,
});repo: context.repo.repo, artifact_id: matchPrArtifact.id, archive_format: 'zip', var fs = require('fs'); fs.writeFileSync('${{github.workspace}}/pr.zip', Buffer.from(downloadPr.data));
unzip pr.zip
echo "pr_number=$(cat NR)" >> $GITHUB_ENV
The code does not neutralize the value of the file NR, e.g. by validating that NR only contains a number (CWE-1284). The NR file is attacker controlled because it originates from a pull request that produced pr.zip. The attacker could escape the existing pr_number and create a new variable using a "\n" (CWE-93) followed by any environment variable to be added such as: (attack code)
\nNODE_OPTIONS="--experimental-modules --experiments-loader=data:text/javascript,console.log('injected code');//"
This would result in injecting and running javascript code (CWE-94) on the workflow runner with elevated privileges. (good code)
Example Language: Other
The code could be modified to validate that the NR
file only contains a numeric value, or the code could
retrieve the PR number from a more trusted source.
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.
Theoretical Injection problems encompass a wide variety of issues -- all mitigated in very different ways. For this reason, the most effective way to discuss these weaknesses is to note the distinct features that classify them as injection weaknesses. The most important issue to note is that all injection problems share one thing in common -- i.e., they allow for the injection of control plane data into the user-controlled data plane. This means that the execution of the process may be altered by sending code in through legitimate data channels, using no other mechanism. While buffer overflows, and many other flaws, involve the use of some further issue to gain execution, injection problems need only for the data to be parsed. The most classic instantiations of this category of weakness are SQL injection and format string vulnerabilities.
CWE-116: Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output
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 prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
Improper encoding or escaping can allow attackers to change the commands that are sent to another component, inserting malicious commands instead. Most products follow a certain protocol that uses structured messages for communication between components, such as queries or commands. These structured messages can contain raw data interspersed with metadata or control information. For example, "GET /index.html HTTP/1.1" is a structured message containing a command ("GET") with a single argument ("/index.html") and metadata about which protocol version is being used ("HTTP/1.1"). If an application uses attacker-supplied inputs to construct a structured message without properly encoding or escaping, then the attacker could insert special characters that will cause the data to be interpreted as control information or metadata. Consequently, the component that receives the output will perform the wrong operations, or otherwise interpret the data incorrectly. 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)
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.
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.
Example 1 This code displays an email address that was submitted as part of a form. (bad code)
Example Language: JSP
<% String email = request.getParameter("email"); %>
... Email Address: <%= email %> The value read from the form parameter is reflected back to the client browser without having been encoded prior to output, allowing various XSS attacks (CWE-79). Example 2 Consider a chat application in which a front-end web application communicates with a back-end server. The back-end is legacy code that does not perform authentication or authorization, so the front-end must implement it. The chat protocol supports two commands, SAY and BAN, although only administrators can use the BAN command. Each argument must be separated by a single space. The raw inputs are URL-encoded. The messaging protocol allows multiple commands to be specified on the same line if they are separated by a "|" character. First let's look at the back end command processor code (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$inputString = readLineFromFileHandle($serverFH);
# generate an array of strings separated by the "|" character. @commands = split(/\|/, $inputString); foreach $cmd (@commands) { # separate the operator from its arguments based on a single whitespace ($operator, $args) = split(/ /, $cmd, 2); $args = UrlDecode($args); if ($operator eq "BAN") { ExecuteBan($args); }elsif ($operator eq "SAY") { ExecuteSay($args); }The front end web application receives a command, encodes it for sending to the server, performs the authorization check, and sends the command to the server. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
$inputString = GetUntrustedArgument("command");
($cmd, $argstr) = split(/\s+/, $inputString, 2); # removes extra whitespace and also changes CRLF's to spaces $argstr =~ s/\s+/ /gs; $argstr = UrlEncode($argstr); if (($cmd eq "BAN") && (! IsAdministrator($username))) { die "Error: you are not the admin.\n"; }# communicate with file server using a file handle $fh = GetServerFileHandle("myserver"); print $fh "$cmd $argstr\n"; It is clear that, while the protocol and back-end allow multiple commands to be sent in a single request, the front end only intends to send a single command. However, the UrlEncode function could leave the "|" character intact. If an attacker provides: (attack code)
SAY hello world|BAN user12
then the front end will see this is a "SAY" command, and the $argstr will look like "hello world | BAN user12". Since the command is "SAY", the check for the "BAN" command will fail, and the front end will send the URL-encoded command to the back end: (result)
SAY hello%20world|BAN%20user12
The back end, however, will treat these as two separate commands: (result)
SAY hello world
BAN user12 Notice, however, that if the front end properly encodes the "|" with "%7C", then the back end will only process a single command. Example 3 This example takes user input, passes it through an encoding scheme, then lists the contents of the user's home directory based on the user name. (bad code)
Example Language: Perl
sub GetUntrustedInput {
return($ARGV[0]); }sub encode { my($str) = @_; }$str =~ s/\&/\&/gs; $str =~ s/\"/\"/gs; $str =~ s/\'/\'/gs; $str =~ s/\</\</gs; $str =~ s/\>/\>/gs; return($str); sub doit { my $uname = encode(GetUntrustedInput("username")); }print "<b>Welcome, $uname!</b><p>\n"; system("cd /home/$uname; /bin/ls -l"); The programmer attempts to encode dangerous characters, however the denylist for encoding is incomplete (CWE-184) and an attacker can still pass a semicolon, resulting in a chain with OS command injection (CWE-78). Additionally, the encoding routine is used inappropriately with command execution. An attacker doesn't even need to insert their own semicolon. The attacker can instead leverage the encoding routine to provide the semicolon to separate the commands. If an attacker supplies a string of the form: (attack code)
' pwd
then the program will encode the apostrophe and insert the semicolon, which functions as a command separator when passed to the system function. This allows the attacker to complete the command injection. 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.
Relationship
This weakness is primary to all weaknesses related to injection (CWE-74) since the inherent nature of injection involves the violation of structured messages.
Relationship CWE-116 and CWE-20 have a close association because, depending on the nature of the structured message, proper input validation can indirectly prevent special characters from changing the meaning of a structured message. For example, by validating that a numeric ID field should only contain the 0-9 characters, the programmer effectively prevents injection attacks. However, input validation is not always sufficient, especially when less stringent data types must be supported, such as free-form text. Consider a SQL injection scenario in which a last name is inserted into a query. The name "O'Reilly" would likely pass the validation step since it is a common last name in the English language. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the database because it contains the "'" apostrophe character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise neutralized. In this case, stripping the apostrophe might reduce the risk of SQL injection, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the wrong name would be recorded. Terminology
The usage of the "encoding" and "escaping" terms varies widely. For example, in some programming languages, the terms are used interchangeably, while other languages provide APIs that use both terms for different tasks. This overlapping usage extends to the Web, such as the "escape" JavaScript function whose purpose is stated to be encoding. The concepts of encoding and escaping predate the Web by decades. Given such a context, it is difficult for CWE to adopt a consistent vocabulary that will not be misinterpreted by some constituency.
Theoretical
This is a data/directive boundary error in which data boundaries are not sufficiently enforced before it is sent to a different control sphere.
Research Gap
While many published vulnerabilities are related to insufficient output encoding, there is such an emphasis on input validation as a protection mechanism that the underlying causes are rarely described. Within CVE, the focus is primarily on well-understood issues like cross-site scripting and SQL injection. It is likely that this weakness frequently occurs in custom protocols that support multiple encodings, which are not necessarily detectable with automated techniques.
CWE-924: Improper Enforcement of Message Integrity During Transmission in a Communication Channel
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 establishes a communication channel with an endpoint and receives a message from that endpoint, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the message was not modified during transmission.
Attackers might be able to modify the message and spoof the endpoint by interfering with the data as it crosses the network or by redirecting the connection to a system under their control.
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 "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
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.
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.
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
This entry should be made more comprehensive in later CWE versions, as it is likely an important design flaw that underlies (or chains to) other weaknesses.
CWE-178: Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
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 account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
Improperly handled case sensitive data can lead to several possible consequences, including:
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 "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
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.
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.
Example 1 In the following example, an XSS neutralization method intends to replace script tags in user-supplied input with a safe equivalent: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public String preventXSS(String input, String mask) {
return input.replaceAll("script", mask); }The code only works when the "script" tag is in all lower-case, forming an incomplete denylist (CWE-184). Equivalent tags such as "SCRIPT" or "ScRiPt" will not be neutralized by this method, allowing an XSS attack. 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.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

