CWE - VIEW SLICE: CWE-1154: Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard (4.15)

CWE VIEW: Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard

View ID: 1154

Vulnerability Mapping: PROHIBITEDThis CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Type: Graph

Downloads: Booklet | CSV | XML

Objective

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the guidance presented in the online wiki that reflects that current rules and recommendations of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Audience

Stakeholder	Description
Software Developers	By following the SEI CERT C Coding Standard, developers will be able to fully or partially prevent the weaknesses that are identified in this view. In addition, developers can use a CWE coverage graph to determine which weaknesses are not directly addressed by the standard, which will help identify and resolve remaining gaps in training, tool acquisition, or other approaches for reducing weaknesses.
Product Customers	If a software developer claims to be following the SEI CERT C Coding standard, then customers can search for the weaknesses in this view in order to formulate independent evidence of that claim.
Educators	Educators can use this view in multiple ways. For example, if there is a focus on teaching weaknesses, the educator could link them to the relevant Secure Coding Standard.

Relationships

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:

Expand All | Collapse All

1154 - Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 01. Preprocessor (PRE) - (1155)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1155 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 01. Preprocessor (PRE))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Preprocessor (PRE) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 02. Declarations and Initialization (DCL) - (1156)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1156 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 02. Declarations and Initialization (DCL))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Return of Stack Variable Address - (562)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1156 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 02. Declarations and Initialization (DCL)) > 562 (Return of Stack Variable Address)

A function returns the address of a stack variable, which will cause unintended program behavior, typically in the form of a crash.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP) - (1157)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Expressions (EXP) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior - (758)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 908 (Use of Uninitialized Resource)

The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 476 (NULL Pointer Dereference)

The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.NPDnull derefNPEnil pointer dereference

Chain - a Compound Element that is a sequence of two or more separate weaknesses that can be closely linked together within software. One weakness, X, can directly create the conditions that are necessary to cause another weakness, Y, to enter a vulnerable condition. When this happens, CWE refers to X as "primary" to Y, and Y is "resultant" from X. Chains can involve more than two weaknesses, and in some cases, they might have a tree-like structure.Unchecked Return Value to NULL Pointer Dereference - (690)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 690 (Unchecked Return Value to NULL Pointer Dereference)

The product does not check for an error after calling a function that can return with a NULL pointer if the function fails, which leads to a resultant NULL pointer dereference.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 628 (Function Call with Incorrectly Specified Arguments)

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine with arguments that are not correctly specified, leading to always-incorrect behavior and resultant weaknesses.

Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments - (685)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 685 (Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments)

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies too many arguments, or too few arguments, which may lead to undefined behavior and resultant weaknesses.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 686 (Function Call With Incorrect Argument Type)

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies an argument that is the wrong data type, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 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

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 704 (Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast)

The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer - (119)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 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 Overflowbuffer overrunmemory safety

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 125 (Out-of-bounds Read)

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.OOB read

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 480 (Use of Incorrect Operator)

The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1157 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 03. Expressions (EXP)) > 481 (Assigning instead of Comparing)

The code uses an operator for assignment when the intention was to perform a comparison.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT) - (1158)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Integers (INT) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 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.OverflowWraparoundwrap, wrap-around, wrap around

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 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

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 680 (Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow)

The product performs a calculation to determine how much memory to allocate, but an integer overflow can occur that causes less memory to be allocated than expected, leading to a buffer overflow.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 192 (Integer Coercion Error)

Integer coercion refers to a set of flaws pertaining to the type casting, extension, or truncation of primitive data types.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 197 (Numeric Truncation Error)

Truncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 704 (Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast)

The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 194 (Unexpected Sign Extension)

The product performs an operation on a number that causes it to be sign extended when it is transformed into a larger data type. When the original number is negative, this can produce unexpected values that lead to resultant weaknesses.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 195 (Signed to Unsigned Conversion Error)

The product uses a signed primitive and performs a cast to an unsigned primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the signed primitive can not be represented using an unsigned primitive.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 369 (Divide By Zero)

The product divides a value by zero.

Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.Incorrect Calculation - (682)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1158 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)) > 587 (Assignment of a Fixed Address to a Pointer)

The product sets a pointer to a specific address other than NULL or 0.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 05. Floating Point (FLP) - (1159)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1159 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 05. Floating Point (FLP))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Floating Point (FLP) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1159 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 05. Floating Point (FLP)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1159 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 05. Floating Point (FLP)) > 391 (Unchecked Error Condition)

[PLANNED FOR DEPRECATION. SEE MAINTENANCE NOTES AND CONSIDER CWE-252, CWE-248, OR CWE-1069.] Ignoring exceptions and other error conditions may allow an attacker to induce unexpected behavior unnoticed.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1159 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 05. Floating Point (FLP)) > 681 (Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1159 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 05. Floating Point (FLP)) > 197 (Numeric Truncation Error)

Truncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR) - (1160)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Arrays (ARR) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer - (119)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 119 (Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 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 indexindex-out-of-rangearray index underflow

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 786 (Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer)

The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 123 (Write-what-where Condition)

Any condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 125 (Out-of-bounds Read)

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.OOB read

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 469 (Use of Pointer Subtraction to Determine Size)

The product subtracts one pointer from another in order to determine size, but this calculation can be incorrect if the pointers do not exist in the same memory chunk.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 121 (Stack-based Buffer Overflow)

A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).Stack Overflow

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 805 (Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value)

The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1160 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)) > 468 (Incorrect Pointer Scaling)

In C and C++, one may often accidentally refer to the wrong memory due to the semantics of when math operations are implicitly scaled.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR) - (1161)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Characters and Strings (STR) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 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, leading to a buffer overflow.Classic Buffer OverflowUnbounded Transfer

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer - (119)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 119 (Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 121 (Stack-based Buffer Overflow)

A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).Stack Overflow

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow)

A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 123 (Write-what-where Condition)

Any condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 125 (Out-of-bounds Read)

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.OOB read

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 676 (Use of Potentially Dangerous Function)

The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 170 (Improper Null Termination)

The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1161 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)) > 704 (Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast)

The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM) - (1162)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Memory Management (MEM) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 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 pointerUAFUse-After-Free

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release - (672)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime - (666)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 666 (Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime)

The product performs an operation on a resource at the wrong phase of the resource's lifecycle, which can lead to unexpected behaviors.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 415 (Double Free)

The product calls free() twice on the same memory address, potentially leading to modification of unexpected memory locations.Double-free

Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime - (401)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 401 (Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime)

The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, which slowly consumes remaining memory.Memory Leak

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 404 (Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)

The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 459 (Incomplete Cleanup)

The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.Insufficient Cleanup

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 771 (Missing Reference to Active Allocated Resource)

The product does not properly maintain a reference to a resource that has been allocated, which prevents the resource from being reclaimed.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 590 (Free of Memory not on the Heap)

The product calls free() on a pointer to memory that was not allocated using associated heap allocation functions such as malloc(), calloc(), or realloc().

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 680 (Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow)

The product performs a calculation to determine how much memory to allocate, but an integer overflow can occur that causes less memory to be allocated than expected, leading to a buffer overflow.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 467 (Use of sizeof() on a Pointer Type)

The code calls sizeof() on a malloced pointer type, which always returns the wordsize/8. This can produce an unexpected result if the programmer intended to determine how much memory has been allocated.

Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value - (789)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 789 (Memory Allocation with Excessive Size Value)

The product allocates memory based on an untrusted, large size value, but it does not ensure that the size is within expected limits, allowing arbitrary amounts of memory to be allocated.Stack Exhaustion

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1162 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)) > 190 (Integer Overflow or Wraparound)

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO) - (1163)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Input Output (FIO) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 67 (Improper Handling of Windows Device Names)

The product constructs pathnames from user input, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a pathname containing a Windows device name such as AUX or CON. This typically leads to denial of service or an information exposure when the application attempts to process the pathname as a regular file.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 197 (Numeric Truncation Error)

Truncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 241 (Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type)

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 664 (Improper Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime)

The product does not maintain or incorrectly maintains control over a resource throughout its lifetime of creation, use, and release.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 404 (Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)

The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 459 (Incomplete Cleanup)

The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.Insufficient Cleanup

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 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.

Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Missing Reference to Active File Descriptor or Handle - (773)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 773 (Missing Reference to Active File Descriptor or Handle)

The product does not properly maintain references to a file descriptor or handle, which prevents that file descriptor/handle from being reclaimed.

Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime - (775)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 775 (Missing Release of File Descriptor or Handle after Effective Lifetime)

The product does not release a file descriptor or handle after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the file descriptor/handle is no longer needed.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 771 (Missing Reference to Active Allocated Resource)

The product does not properly maintain a reference to a resource that has been allocated, which prevents the resource from being reclaimed.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 910 (Use of Expired File Descriptor)

The product uses or accesses a file descriptor after it has been closed.Stale file descriptor

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime - (666)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 666 (Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime)

The product performs an operation on a resource at the wrong phase of the resource's lifecycle, which can lead to unexpected behaviors.

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release - (672)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 686 (Function Call With Incorrect Argument Type)

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies an argument that is the wrong data type, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1163 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)) > 685 (Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments)

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies too many arguments, or too few arguments, which may lead to undefined behavior and resultant weaknesses.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV) - (1165)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1165 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Environment (ENV) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1165 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV)) > 705 (Incorrect Control Flow Scoping)

The product does not properly return control flow to the proper location after it has completed a task or detected an unusual condition.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1165 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV)) > 676 (Use of Potentially Dangerous Function)

The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1165 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV)) > 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 injectionShell metacharactersOS Command Injection

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1165 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV)) > 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.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 11. Signals (SIG) - (1166)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1166 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 11. Signals (SIG))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Signals (SIG) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.Signal Handler Use of a Non-reentrant Function - (479)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1166 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 11. Signals (SIG)) > 479 (Signal Handler Use of a Non-reentrant Function)

The product defines a signal handler that calls a non-reentrant function.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1166 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 11. Signals (SIG)) > 662 (Improper Synchronization)

The product utilizes multiple threads or processes 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.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR) - (1167)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Error Handling (ERR) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR)) > 456 (Missing Initialization of a Variable)

The product does not initialize critical variables, which causes the execution environment to use unexpected values.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR)) > 391 (Unchecked Error Condition)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR)) > 253 (Incorrect Check of Function Return Value)

The product incorrectly checks a return value from a function, which prevents it from detecting errors or exceptional conditions.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR)) > 676 (Use of Potentially Dangerous Function)

The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1167 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 12. Error Handling (ERR)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 13. Application Programming Interfaces (API) - (1168)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1168 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 13. Application Programming Interfaces (API))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Application Programming Interfaces (API) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON) - (1169)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1169 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Concurrency (CON) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1169 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON)) > 667 (Improper Locking)

The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1169 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON)) > 366 (Race Condition within a Thread)

If two threads of execution use a resource simultaneously, there exists the possibility that resources may be used while invalid, in turn making the state of execution undefined.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1169 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON)) > 676 (Use of Potentially Dangerous Function)

The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1169 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON)) > 330 (Use of Insufficiently Random Values)

The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1169 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 14. Concurrency (CON)) > 377 (Insecure Temporary File)

Creating and using insecure temporary files can leave application and system data vulnerable to attack.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC) - (1170)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Miscellaneous (MSC) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm - (327)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC)) > 327 (Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm)

The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC)) > 330 (Use of Insufficiently Random Values)

The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC)) > 676 (Use of Potentially Dangerous Function)

The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1170 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 48. Miscellaneous (MSC)) > 758 (Reliance on Undefined, Unspecified, or Implementation-Defined Behavior)

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS) - (1171)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS))

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the POSIX (POS) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 170 (Improper Null Termination)

The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 242 (Use of Inherently Dangerous Function)

The product calls a function that can never be guaranteed to work safely.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 363 (Race Condition Enabling Link Following)

The product checks the status of a file or directory before accessing it, which produces a race condition in which the file can be replaced with a link before the access is performed, causing the product to access the wrong file.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 696 (Incorrect Behavior Order)

The product performs multiple related behaviors, but the behaviors are performed in the wrong order in ways which may produce resultant weaknesses.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 667 (Improper Locking)

The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 391 (Unchecked Error Condition)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 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.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1171 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 50. POSIX (POS)) > 253 (Incorrect Check of Function Return Value)

The product incorrectly checks a return value from a function, which prevents it from detecting errors or exceptional conditions.

Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 51. Microsoft Windows (WIN) - (1172)

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1172 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 51. Microsoft Windows (WIN) )

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Microsoft Windows (WIN) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1172 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 51. Microsoft Windows (WIN) ) > 762 (Mismatched Memory Management Routines)

The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls a release function that is not compatible with the function that was originally used to allocate that resource.

1154 (Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard) > 1172 (SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 51. Microsoft Windows (WIN) ) > 590 (Free of Memory not on the Heap)

The product calls free() on a pointer to memory that was not allocated using associated heap allocation functions such as malloc(), calloc(), or realloc().

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: PROHIBITED

(this CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: View

Rationale:

This entry is a View. Views are not weaknesses and therefore inappropriate to describe the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments:

Use this View or other Views to search and navigate for the appropriate weakness.

Notes

Relationship

The relationships in this view were determined based on specific statements within the rules from the standard. Not all rules have direct relationships to individual weaknesses, although they likely have chaining relationships in specific circumstances.

References

[REF-598] The Software Engineering Institute. "SEI CERT C Coding Standard". <https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/SEI+CERT+C+Coding+Standard>.

View Metrics

	CWEs in this view		Total CWEs
Weaknesses	78	out of	939
Categories	17	out of	374
Views	0	out of	50
Total	95	out of	1363

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2018-12-18 (CWE 3.2, 2019-01-03)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018-12-18 (CWE 3.2, 2019-01-03)
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated View_Audience
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes

View Components

Weakness ID: 805

Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWEDThis CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: BaseBase - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.

View customized information:

For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers. For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts. For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers. For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry. For users who want to customize what details are displayed.

Description

The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of the buffer.

Extended Description

When the length value exceeds the size of the destination, a buffer overflow could occur.

Common Consequences

This table specifies different individual consequences associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.

Scope	Impact	Likelihood
Integrity Confidentiality Availability	Technical Impact: Read Memory; Modify Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands Buffer overflows often can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy. This can often be used to subvert any other security service.
Availability	Technical Impact: Modify Memory; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU) Buffer overflows generally lead to crashes. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the program into an infinite loop.

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Requirements

Strategy: Language Selection

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

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

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

Phase: Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

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

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

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

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Note:

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

Phase: Implementation

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

Double check that the buffer is as large as specified.

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

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

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

Phase: Architecture and Design

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

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

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

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

Phase: Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

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

Phases: Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the product or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Phases: Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.

OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.

This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.

Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Effectiveness: Limited

Note: The effectiveness of this mitigation depends on the prevention capabilities of the specific sandbox or jail being used and might only help to reduce the scope of an attack, such as restricting the attacker to certain system calls or limiting the portion of the file system that can be accessed.

Relationships

This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.

Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
ParentOf	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	806	Buffer Access Using Size of Source Buffer
CanFollow	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	130	Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency

Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1218	Memory Buffer Errors

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Modes Of Introduction

The different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.

Phase	Note
Implementation

Applicable Platforms

This listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages

C (Often Prevalent)

C++ (Often Prevalent)

Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence)

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

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);

}

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

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

Example 2

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

(bad code)

Example Language: C

int returnChunkSize(void *) {

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

* else, return -1 to indicate an error

*/
...

}
int main() {

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

}

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

Example 3

In the following example, the source character string is copied to the dest character string using the method strncpy.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

...
char source[21] = "the character string";
char dest[12];
strncpy(dest, source, sizeof(source)-1);
...

However, in the call to strncpy the source character string is used within the sizeof call to determine the number of characters to copy. This will create a buffer overflow as the size of the source character string is greater than the dest character string. The dest character string should be used within the sizeof call to ensure that the correct number of characters are copied, as shown below.

(good code)

Example Language: C

...
char source[21] = "the character string";
char dest[12];
strncpy(dest, source, sizeof(dest)-1);
...

Example 4

In this example, the method outputFilenameToLog outputs a filename to a log file. The method arguments include a pointer to a character string containing the file name and an integer for the number of characters in the string. The filename is copied to a buffer where the buffer size is set to a maximum size for inputs to the log file. The method then calls another method to save the contents of the buffer to the log file.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

#define LOG_INPUT_SIZE 40

// saves the file name to a log file
int outputFilenameToLog(char *filename, int length) {

int success;

// buffer with size set to maximum size for input to log file
char buf[LOG_INPUT_SIZE];

// copy filename to buffer
strncpy(buf, filename, length);

// save to log file
success = saveToLogFile(buf);

return success;

}

However, in this case the string copy method, strncpy, mistakenly uses the length method argument to determine the number of characters to copy rather than using the size of the local character string, buf. This can lead to a buffer overflow if the number of characters contained in character string pointed to by filename is larger then the number of characters allowed for the local character string. The string copy method should use the buf character string within a sizeof call to ensure that only characters up to the size of the buf array are copied to avoid a buffer overflow, as shown below.

(good code)

Example Language: C

...
// copy filename to buffer
strncpy(buf, filename, sizeof(buf)-1);
...

Example 5

Windows provides the MultiByteToWideChar(), WideCharToMultiByte(), UnicodeToBytes(), and BytesToUnicode() functions to convert between arbitrary multibyte (usually ANSI) character strings and Unicode (wide character) strings. The size arguments to these functions are specified in different units, (one in bytes, the other in characters) making their use prone to error.

In a multibyte character string, each character occupies a varying number of bytes, and therefore the size of such strings is most easily specified as a total number of bytes. In Unicode, however, characters are always a fixed size, and string lengths are typically given by the number of characters they contain. Mistakenly specifying the wrong units in a size argument can lead to a buffer overflow.

The following function takes a username specified as a multibyte string and a pointer to a structure for user information and populates the structure with information about the specified user. Since Windows authentication uses Unicode for usernames, the username argument is first converted from a multibyte string to a Unicode string.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

void getUserInfo(char *username, struct _USER_INFO_2 info){

WCHAR unicodeUser[UNLEN+1];
MultiByteToWideChar(CP_ACP, 0, username, -1, unicodeUser, sizeof(unicodeUser));
NetUserGetInfo(NULL, unicodeUser, 2, (LPBYTE *)&info);

}

This function incorrectly passes the size of unicodeUser in bytes instead of characters. The call to MultiByteToWideChar() can therefore write up to (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) wide characters, or (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR)*sizeof(WCHAR) bytes, to the unicodeUser array, which has only (UNLEN+1)*sizeof(WCHAR) bytes allocated.

If the username string contains more than UNLEN characters, the call to MultiByteToWideChar() will overflow the buffer unicodeUser.

Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2011-1959	Chain: large length value causes buffer over-read (CWE-126)
CVE-2011-1848	Use of packet length field to make a calculation, then copy into a fixed-size buffer
CVE-2011-0105	Chain: retrieval of length value from an uninitialized memory location
CVE-2011-0606	Crafted length value in document reader leads to buffer overflow
CVE-2011-0651	SSL server overflow when the sum of multiple length fields exceeds a given value
CVE-2010-4156	Language interpreter API function doesn't validate length argument, leading to information exposure

Weakness Ordinalities

Ordinality	Description
Resultant	(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
Primary	(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

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

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

Effectiveness: High

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

Automated Dynamic Analysis

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

Effectiveness: Moderate

Note: Without visibility into the code, black box methods may not be able to sufficiently distinguish this weakness from others, requiring manual methods to diagnose the underlying problem.

Manual Analysis

Manual analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, but it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. This becomes difficult for weaknesses that must be considered for all inputs, since the attack surface can be too large.

Affected Resources

Memory

Memberships

This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	740	CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 7 - Arrays (ARR)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	802	2010 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	867	2011 Top 25 - Weaknesses On the Cusp
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	874	CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 06 - Arrays and the STL (ARR)
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	884	CWE Cross-section
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1160	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 06. Arrays (ARR)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1399	Comprehensive Categorization: Memory Safety

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: ALLOWED

(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: Acceptable-Use

Rationale:

This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments:

Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
CERT C Secure Coding	ARR38-C	Imprecise	Guarantee that library functions do not form invalid pointers

Related Attack Patterns

CAPEC-ID	Attack Pattern Name
CAPEC-100	Overflow Buffers
CAPEC-256	SOAP Array Overflow

References

[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 6, "Why ACLs Are Important" Page 171. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04. <https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.

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

[REF-59] Arjan van de Ven. "Limiting buffer overflows with ExecShield". <https://archive.is/saAFo>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

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

[REF-741] Jason Lam. "Top 25 Series - Rank 12 - Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value". SANS Software Security Institute. 2010-03-11. <https://web.archive.org/web/20100316043717/http://blogs.sans.org:80/appsecstreetfighter/2010/03/11/top-25-series-rank-12-buffer-access-with-incorrect-length-value/>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

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

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

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

[REF-76] Sean Barnum and Michael Gegick. "Least Privilege". 2005-09-14. <https://web.archive.org/web/20211209014121/https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/least-privilege>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2010-01-15 (CWE 1.8, 2010-02-16)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-01-15 (CWE 1.8, 2010-02-16)
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2010-04-05	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-04-05	updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-06-21	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-06-21	updated Common_Consequences, Potential_Mitigations, References
2010-09-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-09-27	updated Potential_Mitigations
2010-12-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-12-13	updated Potential_Mitigations
2011-06-01	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-01	updated Common_Consequences
2011-06-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-27	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, Relationships
2011-09-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-09-13	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-05-11	updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2012-10-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-10-30	updated Potential_Mitigations
2014-02-18	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-02-18	updated Potential_Mitigations, References
2014-06-23	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-06-23	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2017-11-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017-11-08	updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Demonstrative_Examples, Likelihood_of_Exploit, References, Taxonomy_Mappings
2018-03-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018-03-27	updated References
2019-01-03	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-01-03	updated Relationships
2019-06-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-06-20	updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated Relationships
2020-06-25	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-06-25	updated Common_Consequences
2020-08-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-08-20	updated Relationships
2020-12-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-12-10	updated Relationships
2021-07-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-07-20	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
2022-10-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022-10-13	updated References
2023-01-31	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-01-31	updated Description, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations
2023-04-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-04-27	updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes
2024-02-29 (CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2024-02-29 (CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)	updated Demonstrative_Examples

Weakness ID: 120

Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWEDThis CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review (with careful review of mapping notes)
Abstraction: BaseBase - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.

View customized information:

Description

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, leading to a buffer overflow.

Extended Description

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 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.

Alternate Terms

Classic Buffer Overflow:	This term was frequently used by vulnerability researchers during approximately 1995 to 2005 to differentiate buffer copies without length checks (which had been known about for decades) from other emerging weaknesses that still involved invalid accesses of buffers, as vulnerability researchers began to develop advanced exploitation techniques.
Unbounded Transfer

Common Consequences

Scope	Impact	Likelihood
Integrity Confidentiality Availability	Technical Impact: Modify Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands Buffer overflows often can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of the product's implicit security policy. This can often be used to subvert any other security service.
Availability	Technical Impact: Modify Memory; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU) Buffer overflows generally lead to crashes. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the product into an infinite loop.

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Requirements

Strategy: Language Selection

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

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

Phase: Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

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

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

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Note:

Phase: Implementation

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

Double check that your buffer is as large as you specify.

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

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

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

Phase: Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.

When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."

Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

Phase: Architecture and Design

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Phase: Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Phases: Build and Compilation; Operation

Most mitigating technologies at the compiler or OS level to date address only a subset of buffer overflow problems and rarely provide complete protection against even that subset. It is good practice to implement strategies to increase the workload of an attacker, such as leaving the attacker to guess an unknown value that changes every program execution.

Phase: Implementation

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

Effectiveness: Moderate

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

Phase: Architecture and Design

Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion

When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.

Phases: Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Phases: Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.

Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Effectiveness: Limited

Relationships

Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
ParentOf	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	785	Use of Path Manipulation Function without Maximum-sized Buffer
CanFollow	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	170	Improper Null Termination
CanFollow	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	231	Improper Handling of Extra Values
CanFollow	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	416	Use After Free
CanFollow	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	456	Missing Initialization of a Variable
CanPrecede	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	123	Write-what-where Condition

Relevant to the view "Software Development" (CWE-699)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1218	Memory Buffer Errors

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (CWE-700)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	20	Improper Input Validation

Modes Of Introduction

Phase	Note
Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Languages

C (Undetermined Prevalence)

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Assembly (Undetermined Prevalence)

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Demonstrative Examples

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.

Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2000-1094	buffer overflow using command with long argument
CVE-1999-0046	buffer overflow in local program using long environment variable
CVE-2002-1337	buffer overflow in comment characters, when product increments a counter for a ">" but does not decrement for "<"
CVE-2003-0595	By replacing a valid cookie value with an extremely long string of characters, an attacker may overflow the application's buffers.
CVE-2001-0191	By replacing a valid cookie value with an extremely long string of characters, an attacker may overflow the application's buffers.

Weakness Ordinalities

Ordinality	Description
Resultant	(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
Primary	(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

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

Effectiveness: High

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

Automated Dynamic Analysis

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

Manual Analysis

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:

Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Effectiveness: High

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

Web Application Scanner

Web Services Scanner

Database Scanners

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

Fuzz Tester

Framework-based Fuzzer

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:

Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source

Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:

Source code Weakness Analyzer

Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Effectiveness: High

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:

Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction

Cost effective for partial coverage:

Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

Effectiveness: High

Functional Areas

Memory Management

Affected Resources

Memory

Memberships

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	722	OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A1 - Unvalidated Input
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	726	OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A5 - Buffer Overflows
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	741	CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 8 - Characters and Strings (STR)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	802	2010 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	865	2011 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	875	CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 07 - Characters and Strings (STR)
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	884	CWE Cross-section
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	970	SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1129	CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Reliability
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1131	CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Security
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1161	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1399	Comprehensive Categorization: Memory Safety

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: ALLOWED-WITH-REVIEW

(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review)

Reason: Frequent Misuse

Rationale:

There are some indications that this CWE ID might be misused and selected simply because it mentions "buffer overflow" - an increasingly vague term. This CWE entry is only appropriate for "Buffer Copy" operations (not buffer reads), in which where there is no "Checking [the] Size of Input", and (by implication of the copy) writing past the end of the buffer.

Comments:

If the vulnerability being analyzed involves out-of-bounds reads, then consider CWE-125 or descendants. For root cause analysis: if there is any input validation, consider children of CWE-20 such as CWE-1284. If there is a calculation error for buffer sizes, consider CWE-131 or similar.

Notes

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

Many issues that are now called "buffer overflows" are substantively different than the "classic" overflow, including entirely different bug types that rely on overflow exploit techniques, such as integer signedness errors, integer overflows, and format string bugs. This imprecise terminology can make it difficult to determine which variant is being reported.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
PLOVER			Unbounded Transfer ('classic overflow')
7 Pernicious Kingdoms			Buffer Overflow
CLASP			Buffer overflow
OWASP Top Ten 2004	A1	CWE More Specific	Unvalidated Input
OWASP Top Ten 2004	A5	CWE More Specific	Buffer Overflows
CERT C Secure Coding	STR31-C	Exact	Guarantee that storage for strings has sufficient space for character data and the null terminator
WASC	7		Buffer Overflow
Software Fault Patterns	SFP8		Faulty Buffer Access
OMG ASCSM	ASCSM-CWE-120
OMG ASCRM	ASCRM-CWE-120

Related Attack Patterns

CAPEC-ID	Attack Pattern Name
CAPEC-10	Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables
CAPEC-100	Overflow Buffers
CAPEC-14	Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow
CAPEC-24	Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow
CAPEC-42	MIME Conversion
CAPEC-44	Overflow Binary Resource File
CAPEC-45	Buffer Overflow via Symbolic Links
CAPEC-46	Overflow Variables and Tags
CAPEC-47	Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion
CAPEC-67	String Format Overflow in syslog()
CAPEC-8	Buffer Overflow in an API Call
CAPEC-9	Buffer Overflow in Local Command-Line Utilities
CAPEC-92	Forced Integer Overflow

References

[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 5, "Public Enemy #1: The Buffer Overrun" Page 127. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04. <https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.

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

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

[REF-59] Arjan van de Ven. "Limiting buffer overflows with ExecShield". <https://archive.is/saAFo>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.

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

[REF-74] Jason Lam. "Top 25 Series - Rank 3 - Classic Buffer Overflow". SANS Software Security Institute. 2010-03-02. <http://software-security.sans.org/blog/2010/03/02/top-25-series-rank-3-classic-buffer-overflow/>.

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

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

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

[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 8, "C String Handling", Page 388. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.

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

[REF-961] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Reliability Measure (ASCRM)". ASCRM-CWE-120. 2016-01. <http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCRM/1.0/>.

[REF-962] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Security Measure (ASCSM)". ASCSM-CWE-120. 2016-01. <http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCSM/1.0/>.

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

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

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

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

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2006-07-19 (CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)	PLOVER
2006-07-19 (CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2008-07-01	Eric Dalci	Cigital
2008-07-01	updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-08-01		KDM Analytics
2008-08-01	added/updated white box definitions
2008-08-15		Veracode
2008-08-15	Suggested OWASP Top Ten 2004 mapping
2008-09-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-09-08	updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Relationships, Observed_Example, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
2008-10-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-10-10	Changed name and description to more clearly emphasize the "classic" nature of the overflow.
2008-10-14	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-10-14	updated Alternate_Terms, Description, Name, Other_Notes, Terminology_Notes
2008-11-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-11-24	updated Other_Notes, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-01-12	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-01-12	updated Common_Consequences, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationship_Notes, Relationships
2009-07-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-07-27	updated Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2009-10-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-10-29	updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
2010-02-16	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-02-16	updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, Time_of_Introduction, Type
2010-04-05	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-04-05	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-06-21	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-06-21	updated Common_Consequences, Potential_Mitigations, References
2010-09-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-09-27	updated Potential_Mitigations
2010-12-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-12-13	updated Potential_Mitigations
2011-03-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-03-29	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description
2011-06-01	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-01	updated Common_Consequences
2011-06-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-27	updated Relationships
2011-09-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-09-13	updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-05-11	updated References, Relationships
2012-10-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-10-30	updated Potential_Mitigations
2014-02-18	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-02-18	updated Potential_Mitigations, References
2014-07-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-07-30	updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017-11-08	updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Demonstrative_Examples, Likelihood_of_Exploit, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, White_Box_Definitions
2018-03-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018-03-27	updated References
2019-01-03	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-01-03	updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2019-06-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-06-20	updated Relationships
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2020-06-25	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-06-25	updated Common_Consequences, Potential_Mitigations
2020-08-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-08-20	updated Alternate_Terms, Relationships
2020-12-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-12-10	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2021-03-15	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-03-15	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2021-07-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-07-20	updated Potential_Mitigations
2022-10-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022-10-13	updated References
2023-01-31	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-01-31	updated Common_Consequences, Description
2023-04-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-04-27	updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes
Previous Entry Names
Change Date	Previous Entry Name
2008-10-14	Unbounded Transfer ('Classic Buffer Overflow')

Weakness ID: 415

Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWEDThis CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: VariantVariant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.

View customized information:

Description

The product calls free() twice on the same memory address, potentially leading to modification of unexpected memory locations.

Extended Description

When a program calls free() twice with the same argument, the program's memory management data structures become corrupted. This corruption can cause the program to crash or, in some circumstances, cause two later calls to malloc() to return the same pointer. If malloc() returns the same value twice and the program later gives the attacker control over the data that is written into this doubly-allocated memory, the program becomes vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.

Alternate Terms

Double-free

Common Consequences

Scope	Impact	Likelihood
Integrity Confidentiality Availability	Technical Impact: Modify Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands Doubly freeing memory may result in a write-what-where condition, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary code.

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Architecture and Design

Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.

Phase: Implementation

Ensure that each allocation is freed only once. After freeing a chunk, set the pointer to NULL to ensure the pointer cannot be freed again. In complicated error conditions, be sure that clean-up routines respect the state of allocation properly. If the language is object oriented, ensure that object destructors delete each chunk of memory only once.

Phase: Implementation

Use a static analysis tool to find double free instances.

Relationships

Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	666	Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime
ChildOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	1341	Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle
ChildOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	825	Expired Pointer Dereference
PeerOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	123	Write-what-where Condition
PeerOf	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	416	Use After Free
CanFollow	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	364	Signal Handler Race Condition

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	672	Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	672	Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	672	Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release

Modes Of Introduction

Phase	Note
Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Languages

C (Undetermined Prevalence)

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Demonstrative Examples

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:

Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances
Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for freeing the memory

Although some double free vulnerabilities are not much more complicated than this example, most are spread out across hundreds of lines of code or even different files. Programmers seem particularly susceptible to freeing global variables more than once.

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);

}

Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2006-5051	Chain: Signal handler contains too much functionality (CWE-828), introducing a race condition (CWE-362) that leads to a double free (CWE-415).
CVE-2004-0642	Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
CVE-2004-0772	Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
CVE-2005-1689	Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
CVE-2003-0545	Double free from invalid ASN.1 encoding.
CVE-2003-1048	Double free from malformed GIF.
CVE-2005-0891	Double free from malformed GIF.
CVE-2002-0059	Double free from malformed compressed data.

Detection Methods

Fuzzing

Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a powerful technique for generating large numbers of diverse inputs - either randomly or algorithmically - and dynamically invoking the code with those inputs. Even with random inputs, it is often capable of generating unexpected results such as crashes, memory corruption, or resource consumption. Fuzzing effectively produces repeatable test cases that clearly indicate bugs, which helps developers to diagnose the issues.

Effectiveness: High

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Effectiveness: High

Affected Resources

Memory

Memberships

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	398	7PK - Code Quality
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	742	CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 9 - Memory Management (MEM)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	876	CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 08 - Memory Management (MEM)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	969	SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1162	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1237	SFP Primary Cluster: Faulty Resource Release
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1399	Comprehensive Categorization: Memory Safety

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: ALLOWED

(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: Acceptable-Use

Rationale:

This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments:

Notes

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.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
PLOVER			DFREE - Double-Free Vulnerability
7 Pernicious Kingdoms			Double Free
CLASP			Doubly freeing memory
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM00-C		Allocate and free memory in the same module, at the same level of abstraction
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM01-C		Store a new value in pointers immediately after free()
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM30-C	CWE More Specific	Do not access freed memory
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM31-C		Free dynamically allocated memory exactly once
Software Fault Patterns	SFP12		Faulty Memory Release

References

[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 8: C++ Catastrophes." Page 143. McGraw-Hill. 2010.

[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 7, "Double Frees", Page 379. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.

[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005. <https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>.

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2006-07-19 (CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)	PLOVER
2006-07-19 (CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2008-07-01	Eric Dalci	Cigital
2008-07-01	updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
2008-08-01		KDM Analytics
2008-08-01	added/updated white box definitions
2008-09-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-09-08	updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description, Maintenance_Notes, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-11-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-11-24	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-05-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-05-27	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-10-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-10-29	updated Other_Notes
2010-09-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-09-27	updated Relationships
2010-12-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-12-13	updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2011-06-01	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-01	updated Common_Consequences
2011-09-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-09-13	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-05-11	updated References, Relationships
2014-07-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-07-30	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2015-12-07	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2015-12-07	updated Relationships
2017-11-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017-11-08	updated Likelihood_of_Exploit, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, White_Box_Definitions
2019-01-03	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-01-03	updated Relationships
2019-06-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-06-20	updated Relationships
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated References, Relationships
2020-06-25	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-06-25	updated Common_Consequences
2020-08-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-08-20	updated Relationships
2020-12-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-12-10	updated Relationships
2021-03-15	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-03-15	updated Maintenance_Notes, Theoretical_Notes
2021-10-28	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-10-28	updated Relationships
2022-04-28	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022-04-28	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples
2023-04-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-04-27	updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes

Weakness ID: 122

View customized information:

Description

Common Consequences

Scope	Impact	Likelihood
Availability	Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory) Buffer overflows generally lead to crashes. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the program into an infinite loop.
Integrity Confidentiality Availability Access Control	Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Modify Memory Buffer overflows often can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy. Besides important user data, heap-based overflows can be used to overwrite function pointers that may be living in memory, pointing it to the attacker's code. Even in applications that do not explicitly use function pointers, the run-time will usually leave many in memory. For example, object methods in C++ are generally implemented using function pointers. Even in C programs, there is often a global offset table used by the underlying runtime.
Integrity Confidentiality Availability Access Control Other	Technical Impact: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Other When the consequence is arbitrary code execution, this can often be used to subvert any other security service.

Potential Mitigations

Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.

Phase: Architecture and Design

Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Note:

Phases: Operation; Build and Compilation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

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

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Phase: Implementation

Implement and perform bounds checking on input.

Phase: Implementation

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Do not use dangerous functions such as gets. Look for their safe equivalent, which checks for the boundary.

Phase: Operation

Use OS-level preventative functionality. This is not a complete solution, but it provides some defense in depth.

Relationships

Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	787	Out-of-bounds Write
ChildOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	788	Access of Memory Location After End of Buffer

Modes Of Introduction

Phase	Note
Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Languages

C (Undetermined Prevalence)

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

While buffer overflow examples can be rather complex, it is possible to have very simple, yet still exploitable, heap-based buffer overflows:

(bad code)

Example Language: C

#define BUFSIZE 256
int main(int argc, char **argv) {

char *buf;
buf = (char *)malloc(sizeof(char)*BUFSIZE);
strcpy(buf, argv[1]);

}

The buffer is allocated heap memory with a fixed size, but there is no guarantee the string in argv[1] will not exceed this size and cause an overflow.

Example 2

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

(bad code)

Example Language: C

char * copy_input(char *user_supplied_string){

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

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

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

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

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

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

/* encode to < */

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

}
return dst_buf;

}

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

Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2021-43537	Chain: in a web browser, an unsigned 64-bit integer is forcibly cast to a 32-bit integer (CWE-681) and potentially leading to an integer overflow (CWE-190). If an integer overflow occurs, this can cause heap memory corruption (CWE-122)
CVE-2007-4268	Chain: integer signedness error (CWE-195) passes signed comparison, leading to heap overflow (CWE-122)
CVE-2009-2523	Chain: product does not handle when an input string is not NULL terminated (CWE-170), leading to buffer over-read (CWE-125) or heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122).
CVE-2021-29529	Chain: machine-learning product can have a heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122) when some integer-oriented bounds are calculated by using ceiling() and floor() on floating point values (CWE-1339)
CVE-2010-1866	Chain: integer overflow (CWE-190) causes a negative signed value, which later bypasses a maximum-only check (CWE-839), leading to heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122).

Weakness Ordinalities

Ordinality	Description
Primary	(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)

Detection Methods

Fuzzing

Effectiveness: High

Affected Resources

Memory

Memberships

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	970	SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1161	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 07. Characters and Strings (STR)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1399	Comprehensive Categorization: Memory Safety

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: ALLOWED

(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: Acceptable-Use

Rationale:

This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments:

Notes

Relationship

Heap-based buffer overflows are usually just as dangerous as stack-based buffer overflows.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
CLASP			Heap overflow
Software Fault Patterns	SFP8		Faulty Buffer Access
CERT C Secure Coding	STR31-C	CWE More Specific	Guarantee that storage for strings has sufficient space for character data and the null terminator
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-2		Req CR 3.5
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 3-3		Req SR 3.5
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1		Req SI-1
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1		Req SI-2
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1		Req SVV-1
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1		Req SVV-3

Related Attack Patterns

CAPEC-ID	Attack Pattern Name
CAPEC-92	Forced Integer Overflow

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005. <https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>.

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

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

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

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2006-07-19 (CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)	CLASP
2006-07-19 (CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)
Contributions
Contribution Date	Contributor	Organization
2023-11-14 (CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)	participants in the CWE ICS/OT SIG 62443 Mapping Fall Workshop
2023-11-14 (CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)	Contributed or reviewed taxonomy mappings for ISA/IEC 62443
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2008-07-01	Eric Dalci	Cigital
2008-07-01	updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
2008-08-01		KDM Analytics
2008-08-01	added/updated white box definitions
2008-09-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-09-08	updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
2008-11-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-11-24	updated Common_Consequences, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes
2009-01-12	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-01-12	updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
2009-10-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-10-29	updated Relationships
2010-02-16	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-02-16	updated References
2011-06-01	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-01	updated Common_Consequences
2012-05-11	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-05-11	updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships
2012-10-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-10-30	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2013-02-21	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2013-02-21	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
2014-06-23	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-06-23	updated Observed_Examples
2014-07-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-07-30	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017-11-08	updated Causal_Nature, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, White_Box_Definitions
2018-03-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018-03-27	updated References
2019-01-03	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-01-03	updated Relationships
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated Relationships
2021-03-15	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-03-15	updated References
2021-07-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-07-20	updated Observed_Examples
2023-04-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-04-27	updated Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes
2023-10-26	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-10-26	updated Observed_Examples
2024-02-29 (CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2024-02-29 (CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)	updated Observed_Examples, Taxonomy_Mappings

Weakness ID: 664

Vulnerability Mapping: DISCOURAGEDThis CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: PillarPillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.

View customized information:

Description

The product does not maintain or incorrectly maintains control over a resource throughout its lifetime of creation, use, and release.

Extended Description

Resources often have explicit instructions on how to be created, used and destroyed. When code does not follow these instructions, it can lead to unexpected behaviors and potentially exploitable states.

Even without explicit instructions, various principles are expected to be adhered to, such as "Do not use an object until after its creation is complete," or "do not use an object after it has been slated for destruction."

Common Consequences

Scope	Impact	Likelihood
Other	Technical Impact: Other

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Testing

Use Static analysis tools to check for unreleased resources.

Relationships

Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1000	Research Concepts
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	118	Incorrect Access of Indexable Resource ('Range Error')
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	221	Information Loss or Omission
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	372	Incomplete Internal State Distinction
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	400	Uncontrolled Resource Consumption
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	404	Improper Resource Shutdown or Release
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	410	Insufficient Resource Pool
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	471	Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	487	Reliance on Package-level Scope
ParentOf	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	495	Private Data Structure Returned From A Public Method
ParentOf	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	496	Public Data Assigned to Private Array-Typed Field
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	501	Trust Boundary Violation
ParentOf	Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	580	clone() Method Without super.clone()
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	610	Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	662	Improper Synchronization
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	665	Improper Initialization
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	666	Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	668	Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	669	Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	673	External Influence of Sphere Definition
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	704	Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	706	Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	911	Improper Update of Reference Count
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	913	Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	922	Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information
ParentOf	Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.	1229	Creation of Emergent Resource
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	1250	Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State
ParentOf	Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	1329	Reliance on Component That is Not Updateable

Modes Of Introduction

Phase	Note
Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Observed Examples

Reference	Description
CVE-2018-1000613	Cryptography API uses unsafe reflection when deserializing a private key
CVE-2022-21668	Chain: Python library does not limit the resources used to process images that specify a very large number of bands (CWE-1284), leading to excessive memory consumption (CWE-789) or an integer overflow (CWE-190).

Memberships

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	984	SFP Secondary Cluster: Life Cycle
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1163	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 09. Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1370	ICS Supply Chain: Common Mode Frailties
MemberOf	Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1416	Comprehensive Categorization: Resource Lifecycle Management

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: DISCOURAGED

(this CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: Abstraction

Rationale:

This CWE entry is high-level when lower-level children are available.

Comments:

Consider children or descendants of this entry instead.

Notes

Maintenance

More work is needed on this entry and its children. There are perspective/layering issues; for example, one breakdown is based on lifecycle phase (CWE-404, CWE-665), while other children are independent of lifecycle, such as CWE-400. Others do not specify as many bases or variants, such as CWE-704, which primarily covers numbers at this stage.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
CERT C Secure Coding	FIO39-C	CWE More Abstract	Do not alternately input and output from a stream without an intervening flush or positioning call

Related Attack Patterns

CAPEC-ID	Attack Pattern Name
CAPEC-196	Session Credential Falsification through Forging
CAPEC-21	Exploitation of Trusted Identifiers
CAPEC-60	Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)
CAPEC-61	Session Fixation
CAPEC-62	Cross Site Request Forgery

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2008-04-11 (CWE Draft 9, 2008-04-11)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-04-11 (CWE Draft 9, 2008-04-11)
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2008-07-01	Eric Dalci	Cigital
2008-07-01	updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
2008-09-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008-09-08	updated Description, Maintenance_Notes, Relationships, Type
2009-03-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-03-10	updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2009-05-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-05-27	updated Description, Name, Relationships
2009-07-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009-07-27	updated Relationships
2010-02-16	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-02-16	updated Relationships
2010-12-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010-12-13	updated Description, Relationships
2011-03-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-03-29	updated Relationships
2011-06-01	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011-06-01	updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
2012-05-11	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-05-11	updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2012-10-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012-10-30	updated Potential_Mitigations
2013-02-21	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2013-02-21	updated Relationships
2013-07-17	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2013-07-17	updated Relationships
2014-07-30	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014-07-30	updated Relationships
2015-12-07	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2015-12-07	updated Relationships
2017-01-19	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017-01-19	updated Relationships
2017-11-08	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017-11-08	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2018-03-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018-03-27	updated Relationships
2019-01-03	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-01-03	updated Relationships
2019-06-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019-06-20	updated Relationships
2020-02-24	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-02-24	updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Type
2020-06-25	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-06-25	updated Relationships
2020-08-20	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-08-20	updated Relationships
2020-12-10	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020-12-10	updated Relationships
2021-03-15	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021-03-15	updated Maintenance_Notes, Relationships
2022-10-13	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022-10-13	updated Relationships
2023-01-31	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-01-31	updated Description, Relationships
2023-04-27	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-04-27	updated Relationships
2023-06-29	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-06-29	updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-10-26	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023-10-26	updated Observed_Examples
Previous Entry Names
Change Date	Previous Entry Name
2009-05-27	Insufficient Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime

Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE VIEW: Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard

View Components

CWE-786: Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer

CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

CWE-481: Assigning instead of Comparing

CWE-587: Assignment of a Fixed Address to a Pointer

CWE-805: Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value

CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')

CWE-369: Divide By Zero

CWE-415: Double Free

CWE-590: Free of Memory not on the Heap

CWE-686: Function Call With Incorrect Argument Type

CWE-685: Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments

CWE-628: Function Call with Incorrectly Specified Arguments

CWE-122: Heap-based Buffer Overflow

CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges

CWE-664: Improper Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime

CWE-241: Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type

CWE-67: Improper Handling of Windows Device Names

Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE VIEW: Weaknesses Addressed by the SEI CERT C Coding Standard

View Components

CWE-786: Access of Memory Location Before Start of Buffer

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-843: Access of Resource Using Incompatible Type ('Type Confusion')

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-481: Assigning instead of Comparing

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-587: Assignment of a Fixed Address to a Pointer

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-805: Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-369: Divide By Zero

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-415: Double Free

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-590: Free of Memory not on the Heap

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-686: Function Call With Incorrect Argument Type

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-685: Function Call With Incorrect Number of Arguments

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-628: Function Call with Incorrectly Specified Arguments

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-122: Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-273: Improper Check for Dropped Privileges

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-664: Improper Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-241: Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type

Edit Custom Filter

CWE-67: Improper Handling of Windows Device Names