CWE VIEW: Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters
CWE identifiers in this view are associated with clusters of Software Fault Patterns (SFPs).
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:
888 - Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Risky Values cluster (SFP1).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Glitch in Computation cluster (SFP1).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
128
(Wrap-around Error)
Wrap around errors occur whenever a value is incremented past the maximum value for its type and therefore "wraps around" to a very small, negative, or undefined value.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
190
(Integer Overflow or Wraparound)
The product performs a calculation that can
produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic
assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than
the original value. This occurs when an integer value is
incremented to a value that is too large to store in the
associated representation. When this occurs, the value may
become a very small or negative number.
Overflow
Wraparound
wrap, wrap-around, wrap around
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
196
(Unsigned to Signed Conversion Error)
The product uses an unsigned primitive and performs a cast to a signed primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the unsigned primitive can not be represented using a signed primitive.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
369
(Divide By Zero)
The product divides a value by zero.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
456
(Missing Initialization of a Variable)
The product does not initialize critical variables, which causes the execution environment to use unexpected values.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
457
(Use of Uninitialized Variable)
The code uses a variable that has not been initialized, leading to unpredictable or unintended results.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
466
(Return of Pointer Value Outside of Expected Range)
A function can return a pointer to memory that is outside of the buffer that the pointer is expected to reference.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
475
(Undefined Behavior for Input to API)
The behavior of this function is undefined unless its control parameter is set to a specific value.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
480
(Use of Incorrect Operator)
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
481
(Assigning instead of Comparing)
The code uses an operator for assignment when the intention was to perform a comparison.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
486
(Comparison of Classes by Name)
The product compares classes by name, which can cause it to use the wrong class when multiple classes can have the same name.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
570
(Expression is Always False)
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to false.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
571
(Expression is Always True)
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to true.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
579
(J2EE Bad Practices: Non-serializable Object Stored in Session)
The product stores a non-serializable object as an HttpSession attribute, which can hurt reliability.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
587
(Assignment of a Fixed Address to a Pointer)
The product sets a pointer to a specific address other than NULL or 0.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
594
(J2EE Framework: Saving Unserializable Objects to Disk)
When the J2EE container attempts to write unserializable objects to disk there is no guarantee that the process will complete successfully.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
597
(Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison)
The product uses the wrong operator when comparing a string, such as using "==" when the .equals() method should be used instead.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
683
(Function Call With Incorrect Order of Arguments)
The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies the arguments in an incorrect order, leading to resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
688
(Function Call With Incorrect Variable or Reference as Argument)
The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies the wrong variable or reference as one of the arguments, which may lead to undefined behavior and resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
704
(Incorrect Type Conversion or Cast)
The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
885
(SFP Primary Cluster: Risky Values) >
998
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation) >
768
(Incorrect Short Circuit Evaluation)
The product contains a conditional statement with multiple logical expressions in which one of the non-leading expressions may produce side effects. This may lead to an unexpected state in the program after the execution of the conditional, because short-circuiting logic may prevent the side effects from occurring.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
886
(SFP Primary Cluster: Unused entities)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unused entities cluster (SFP2).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
886
(SFP Primary Cluster: Unused entities) >
482
(Comparing instead of Assigning)
The code uses an operator for comparison when the intention was to perform an assignment.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
886
(SFP Primary Cluster: Unused entities) >
561
(Dead Code)
The product contains dead code, which can never be executed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
886
(SFP Primary Cluster: Unused entities) >
563
(Assignment to Variable without Use)
The variable's value is assigned but never used, making it a dead store.
Unused Variable
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the API cluster (SFP3).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Use of an Improper API cluster (SFP3).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
111
(Direct Use of Unsafe JNI)
When a Java application uses the Java Native Interface (JNI) to call code written in another programming language, it can expose the application to weaknesses in that code, even if those weaknesses cannot occur in Java.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
227
(7PK - API Abuse)
This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that involve the software using an API in a manner contrary to its intended use. According to the authors of the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms, "An API is a contract between a caller and a callee. The most common forms of API misuse occurs when the caller does not honor its end of this contract. For example, if a program does not call chdir() after calling chroot(), it violates the contract that specifies how to change the active root directory in a secure fashion. Another good example of library abuse is expecting the callee to return trustworthy DNS information to the caller. In this case, the caller misuses the callee API by making certain assumptions about its behavior (that the return value can be used for authentication purposes). One can also violate the caller-callee contract from the other side. For example, if a coder subclasses SecureRandom and returns a non-random value, the contract is violated."
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
242
(Use of Inherently Dangerous Function)
The product calls a function that can never be guaranteed to work safely.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
245
(J2EE Bad Practices: Direct Management of Connections)
The J2EE application directly manages connections, instead of using the container's connection management facilities.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
246
(J2EE Bad Practices: Direct Use of Sockets)
The J2EE application directly uses sockets instead of using framework method calls.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
382
(J2EE Bad Practices: Use of System.exit())
A J2EE application uses System.exit(), which also shuts down its container.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
383
(J2EE Bad Practices: Direct Use of Threads)
Thread management in a Web application is forbidden in some circumstances and is always highly error prone.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
432
(Dangerous Signal Handler not Disabled During Sensitive Operations)
The product uses a signal handler that shares state with other signal handlers, but it does not properly mask or prevent those signal handlers from being invoked while the original signal handler is still running.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
439
(Behavioral Change in New Version or Environment)
A's behavior or functionality changes with a new version of A, or a new environment, which is not known (or manageable) by B.
Functional change
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
440
(Expected Behavior Violation)
A feature, API, or function does not perform according to its specification.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
474
(Use of Function with Inconsistent Implementations)
The code uses a function that has inconsistent implementations across operating systems and versions.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
477
(Use of Obsolete Function)
The code uses deprecated or obsolete functions, which suggests that the code has not been actively reviewed or maintained.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
479
(Signal Handler Use of a Non-reentrant Function)
The product defines a signal handler that calls a non-reentrant function.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
558
(Use of getlogin() in Multithreaded Application)
The product uses the getlogin() function in a multithreaded context, potentially causing it to return incorrect values.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
572
(Call to Thread run() instead of start())
The product calls a thread's run() method instead of calling start(), which causes the code to run in the thread of the caller instead of the callee.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
573
(Improper Following of Specification by Caller)
The product does not follow or incorrectly follows the specifications as required by the implementation language, environment, framework, protocol, or platform.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
574
(EJB Bad Practices: Use of Synchronization Primitives)
The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using thread synchronization primitives.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
575
(EJB Bad Practices: Use of AWT Swing)
The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using AWT/Swing.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
576
(EJB Bad Practices: Use of Java I/O)
The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using the java.io package.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
577
(EJB Bad Practices: Use of Sockets)
The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using sockets.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
578
(EJB Bad Practices: Use of Class Loader)
The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using the class loader.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
586
(Explicit Call to Finalize())
The product makes an explicit call to the finalize() method from outside the finalizer.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
589
(Call to Non-ubiquitous API)
The product uses an API function that does not exist on all versions of the target platform. This could cause portability problems or inconsistencies that allow denial of service or other consequences.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
617
(Reachable Assertion)
The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary.
assertion failure
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
684
(Incorrect Provision of Specified Functionality)
The code does not function according to its published specifications, potentially leading to incorrect usage.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
695
(Use of Low-Level Functionality)
The product uses low-level functionality that is explicitly prohibited by the framework or specification under which the product is supposed to operate.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
887
(SFP Primary Cluster: API) >
1001
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Use of an Improper API) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Exception Management cluster (SFP4, SFP5, SFP6).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
960
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Ambiguous Exception Type)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Ambiguous Exception Type cluster (SFP5).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
960
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Ambiguous Exception Type) >
396
(Declaration of Catch for Generic Exception)
Catching overly broad exceptions promotes complex error handling code that is more likely to contain security vulnerabilities.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
960
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Ambiguous Exception Type) >
397
(Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception)
The product throws or raises an overly broad exceptions that can hide important details and produce inappropriate responses to certain conditions.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Incorrect Exception Behavior cluster (SFP6).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
392
(Missing Report of Error Condition)
The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
393
(Return of Wrong Status Code)
A function or operation returns an incorrect return value or status code that does not indicate the true result of execution, causing the product to modify its behavior based on the incorrect result.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
455
(Non-exit on Failed Initialization)
The product does not exit or otherwise modify its operation when security-relevant errors occur during initialization, such as when a configuration file has a format error or a hardware security module (HSM) cannot be activated, which can cause the product to execute in a less secure fashion than intended by the administrator.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
460
(Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception)
The product does not clean up its state or incorrectly cleans up its state when an exception is thrown, leading to unexpected state or control flow.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
544
(Missing Standardized Error Handling Mechanism)
The product does not use a standardized method for handling errors throughout the code, which might introduce inconsistent error handling and resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
584
(Return Inside Finally Block)
The code has a return statement inside a finally block, which will cause any thrown exception in the try block to be discarded.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
636
(Not Failing Securely ('Failing Open'))
When the product encounters an error condition or failure, its design requires it to fall back to a state that is less secure than other options that are available, such as selecting the weakest encryption algorithm or using the most permissive access control restrictions.
Failing Open
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
961
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Exception Behavior) >
703
(Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unchecked Status Condition cluster (SFP4).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
248
(Uncaught Exception)
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
280
(Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges )
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
372
(Incomplete Internal State Distinction)
The product does not properly determine which state it is in, causing it to assume it is in state X when in fact it is in state Y, causing it to perform incorrect operations in a security-relevant manner.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
390
(Detection of Error Condition Without Action)
The product detects a specific error, but takes no actions to handle the error.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
394
(Unexpected Status Code or Return Value)
The product does not properly check when a function or operation returns a value that is legitimate for the function, but is not expected by the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
395
(Use of NullPointerException Catch to Detect NULL Pointer Dereference)
Catching NullPointerException should not be used as an alternative to programmatic checks to prevent dereferencing a null pointer.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
431
(Missing Handler)
A handler is not available or implemented.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
478
(Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression)
The code does not have a default case in an expression with multiple conditions, such as a switch statement.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
484
(Omitted Break Statement in Switch)
The product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
600
(Uncaught Exception in Servlet )
The Servlet does not catch all exceptions, which may reveal sensitive debugging information.
Missing Catch Block
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
665
(Improper Initialization)
The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
754
(Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
889
(SFP Primary Cluster: Exception Management) >
962
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition) >
755
(Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles an exceptional condition.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Memory Access cluster (SFP7, SFP8).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Buffer Access cluster (SFP8).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
118
(Incorrect Access of Indexable Resource ('Range Error'))
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts operations within the boundaries of a resource that is accessed using an index or pointer, such as memory or files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
119
(Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer)
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
Buffer Overflow
buffer overrun
memory safety
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
120
(Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow'))
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Classic Buffer Overflow
Unbounded Transfer
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
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
Stack Buffer Overflow
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
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().
Heap Overflow
Heap Buffer Overflow
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
124
(Buffer Underwrite ('Buffer Underflow'))
The product writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
buffer underrun
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
125
(Out-of-bounds Read)
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
OOB read
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
126
(Buffer Over-read)
The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations after the targeted buffer.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
127
(Buffer Under-read)
The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations prior to the targeted buffer.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
970
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Buffer Access) >
129
(Improper Validation of Array Index)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
out-of-bounds array index
index-out-of-range
array index underflow
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
971
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Pointer Use)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Pointer Use cluster (SFP7).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
971
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Pointer Use) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
971
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Pointer Use) >
476
(NULL Pointer Dereference)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
NPD
null deref
NPE
nil pointer dereference
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
971
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Pointer Use) >
588
(Attempt to Access Child of a Non-structure Pointer)
Casting a non-structure type to a structure type and accessing a field can lead to memory access errors or data corruption.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
972
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty String Expansion)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty String Expansion cluster (SFP9).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
972
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty String Expansion) >
785
(Use of Path Manipulation Function without Maximum-sized Buffer)
The product invokes a function for normalizing paths or file names, but it provides an output buffer that is smaller than the maximum possible size, such as PATH_MAX.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
973
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Improper NULL Termination)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Improper NULL Termination cluster (SFP11).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
973
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Improper NULL Termination) >
170
(Improper Null Termination)
The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
974
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Buffer Length Computation)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Incorrect Buffer Length Computation cluster (SFP10).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
974
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Buffer Length Computation) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
974
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Buffer Length Computation) >
135
(Incorrect Calculation of Multi-Byte String Length)
The product does not correctly calculate the length of strings that can contain wide or multi-byte characters.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
974
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Buffer Length Computation) >
251
(Often Misused: String Management)
Functions that manipulate strings encourage buffer overflows.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
890
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Access) >
974
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Buffer Length Computation) >
467
(Use of sizeof() on a Pointer Type)
The code calls sizeof() on a pointer type, which can be an incorrect calculation if the programmer intended to determine the size of the data that is being pointed to.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
891
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Management)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Memory Management cluster (SFP38).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
891
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Management) >
969
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Memory Release cluster (SFP12).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
891
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Management) >
969
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release) >
415
(Double Free)
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
Double-free
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
891
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Management) >
969
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release) >
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().
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
891
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Management) >
969
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release) >
761
(Free of Pointer not at Start of Buffer)
The product calls free() on a pointer to a memory resource that was allocated on the heap, but the pointer is not at the start of the buffer.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
891
(SFP Primary Cluster: Memory Management) >
969
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release) >
763
(Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference)
The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Resource Management cluster (SFP37).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Failure to Release Resource cluster (SFP14).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource) >
404
(Improper Resource Shutdown or Release)
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource) >
459
(Incomplete Cleanup)
The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.
Insufficient Cleanup
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
982
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failure to Release Resource) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
983
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Resource Use)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Resource Use cluster (SFP15).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
983
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Resource Use) >
416
(Use After Free)
The product reuses or references memory after it has been freed. At some point afterward, the memory may be allocated again and saved in another pointer, while the original pointer references a location somewhere within the new allocation. Any operations using the original pointer are no longer valid because the memory "belongs" to the code that operates on the new pointer.
Dangling pointer
UAF
Use-After-Free
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
983
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Resource Use) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
984
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Life Cycle)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Life Cycle cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
984
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Life Cycle) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
984
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Life Cycle) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
984
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Life Cycle) >
675
(Multiple Operations on Resource in Single-Operation Context)
The product performs the same operation on a resource two or more times, when the operation should only be applied once.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
984
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Life Cycle) >
694
(Use of Multiple Resources with Duplicate Identifier)
The product uses multiple resources that can have the same identifier, in a context in which unique identifiers are required.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
985
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Consumption)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unrestricted Consumption cluster (SFP13).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
985
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Consumption) >
400
(Uncontrolled Resource Consumption)
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
Resource Exhaustion
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
985
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Consumption) >
674
(Uncontrolled Recursion)
The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.
Stack Exhaustion
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
985
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Consumption) >
770
(Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling)
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
892
(SFP Primary Cluster: Resource Management) >
985
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Consumption) >
774
(Allocation of File Descriptors or Handles Without Limits or Throttling)
The product allocates file descriptors or handles on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on how many descriptors can be allocated, in violation of the intended security policy for that actor.
File Descriptor Exhaustion
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Path Resolution cluster (SFP16, SFP17, SFP18).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
979
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failed Chroot Jail)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Failed Chroot Jail cluster (SFP17).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
979
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Failed Chroot Jail) >
243
(Creation of chroot Jail Without Changing Working Directory)
The product uses the chroot() system call to create a jail, but does not change the working directory afterward. This does not prevent access to files outside of the jail.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Link in Resource Name Resolution cluster (SFP18).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution) >
386
(Symbolic Name not Mapping to Correct Object)
A constant symbolic reference to an object is used, even though the reference can resolve to a different object over time.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution) >
59
(Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following'))
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
insecure temporary file
Zip Slip
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution) >
610
(Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere)
The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution) >
62
(UNIX Hard Link)
The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently account for when the name is associated with a hard link to a target that is outside of the intended control sphere. This could allow an attacker to cause the product to operate on unauthorized files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution) >
64
(Windows Shortcut Following (.LNK))
The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently handle when the file is a Windows shortcut (.LNK) whose target is outside of the intended control sphere. This could allow an attacker to cause the product to operate on unauthorized files.
Windows symbolic link following
symlink
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
980
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Link in Resource Name Resolution) >
65
(Windows Hard Link)
The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently handle when the name is associated with a hard link to a target that is outside of the intended control sphere. This could allow an attacker to cause the product to operate on unauthorized files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Path Traversal cluster (SFP16).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
22
(Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'))
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Directory traversal
Path traversal
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
23
(Relative Path Traversal)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
Zip Slip
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
24
(Path Traversal: '../filedir')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "../" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
25
(Path Traversal: '/../filedir')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "/../" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
26
(Path Traversal: '/dir/../filename')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "/dir/../filename" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
27
(Path Traversal: 'dir/../../filename')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize multiple internal "../" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
28
(Path Traversal: '..\filedir')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "..\" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
29
(Path Traversal: '\..\filename')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
30
(Path Traversal: '\dir\..\filename')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\dir\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
31
(Path Traversal: 'dir\..\..\filename')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize 'dir\..\..\filename' (multiple internal backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
32
(Path Traversal: '...' (Triple Dot))
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '...' (triple dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
33
(Path Traversal: '....' (Multiple Dot))
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '....' (multiple dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
34
(Path Traversal: '....//')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '....//' (doubled dot dot slash) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
35
(Path Traversal: '.../...//')
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '.../...//' (doubled triple dot slash) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
36
(Absolute Path Traversal)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
37
(Path Traversal: '/absolute/pathname/here')
The product accepts input in the form of a slash absolute path ('/absolute/pathname/here') without appropriate validation, which can allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
38
(Path Traversal: '\absolute\pathname\here')
The product accepts input in the form of a backslash absolute path ('\absolute\pathname\here') without appropriate validation, which can allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
39
(Path Traversal: 'C:dirname')
The product accepts input that contains a drive letter or Windows volume letter ('C:dirname') that potentially redirects access to an unintended location or arbitrary file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
40
(Path Traversal: '\\UNC\share\name\' (Windows UNC Share))
The product accepts input that identifies a Windows UNC share ('\\UNC\share\name') that potentially redirects access to an unintended location or arbitrary file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
41
(Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence)
The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory names. The associated manipulations are intended to generate multiple names for the same object.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
42
(Path Equivalence: 'filename.' (Trailing Dot))
The product accepts path input in the form of trailing dot ('filedir.') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
428
(Unquoted Search Path or Element)
The product uses a search path that contains an unquoted element, in which the element contains whitespace or other separators. This can cause the product to access resources in a parent path.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
43
(Path Equivalence: 'filename....' (Multiple Trailing Dot))
The product accepts path input in the form of multiple trailing dot ('filedir....') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
44
(Path Equivalence: 'file.name' (Internal Dot))
The product accepts path input in the form of internal dot ('file.ordir') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
45
(Path Equivalence: 'file...name' (Multiple Internal Dot))
The product accepts path input in the form of multiple internal dot ('file...dir') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
46
(Path Equivalence: 'filename ' (Trailing Space))
The product accepts path input in the form of trailing space ('filedir ') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
47
(Path Equivalence: ' filename' (Leading Space))
The product accepts path input in the form of leading space (' filedir') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
48
(Path Equivalence: 'file name' (Internal Whitespace))
The product accepts path input in the form of internal space ('file(SPACE)name') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
49
(Path Equivalence: 'filename/' (Trailing Slash))
The product accepts path input in the form of trailing slash ('filedir/') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
50
(Path Equivalence: '//multiple/leading/slash')
The product accepts path input in the form of multiple leading slash ('//multiple/leading/slash') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
51
(Path Equivalence: '/multiple//internal/slash')
The product accepts path input in the form of multiple internal slash ('/multiple//internal/slash/') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
52
(Path Equivalence: '/multiple/trailing/slash//')
The product accepts path input in the form of multiple trailing slash ('/multiple/trailing/slash//') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
53
(Path Equivalence: '\multiple\\internal\backslash')
The product accepts path input in the form of multiple internal backslash ('\multiple\trailing\\slash') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
54
(Path Equivalence: 'filedir\' (Trailing Backslash))
The product accepts path input in the form of trailing backslash ('filedir\') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
55
(Path Equivalence: '/./' (Single Dot Directory))
The product accepts path input in the form of single dot directory exploit ('/./') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
56
(Path Equivalence: 'filedir*' (Wildcard))
The product accepts path input in the form of asterisk wildcard ('filedir*') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attacker to traverse the file system to unintended locations or access arbitrary files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
57
(Path Equivalence: 'fakedir/../realdir/filename')
The product contains protection mechanisms to restrict access to 'realdir/filename', but it constructs pathnames using external input in the form of 'fakedir/../realdir/filename' that are not handled by those mechanisms. This allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions against the targeted file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
58
(Path Equivalence: Windows 8.3 Filename)
The product contains a protection mechanism that restricts access to a long filename on a Windows operating system, but it does not properly restrict access to the equivalent short "8.3" filename.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
66
(Improper Handling of File Names that Identify Virtual Resources)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a file name that identifies a "virtual" resource that is not directly specified within the directory that is associated with the file name, causing the product to perform file-based operations on a resource that is not a file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
706
(Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference)
The product uses a name or reference to access a resource, but the name/reference resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
72
(Improper Handling of Apple HFS+ Alternate Data Stream Path)
The product does not properly handle special paths that may identify the data or resource fork of a file on the HFS+ file system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
893
(SFP Primary Cluster: Path Resolution) >
981
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal) >
73
(External Control of File Name or Path)
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Synchronization cluster (SFP19, SFP20, SFP21, SFP22).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Missing Lock cluster (SFP19).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
364
(Signal Handler Race Condition)
The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
368
(Context Switching Race Condition)
A product performs a series of non-atomic actions to switch between contexts that cross privilege or other security boundaries, but a race condition allows an attacker to modify or misrepresent the product's behavior during the switch.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
413
(Improper Resource Locking)
The product does not lock or does not correctly lock a resource when the product must have exclusive access to the resource.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
414
(Missing Lock Check)
A product does not check to see if a lock is present before performing sensitive operations on a resource.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
543
(Use of Singleton Pattern Without Synchronization in a Multithreaded Context)
The product uses the singleton pattern when creating a resource within a multithreaded environment.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
567
(Unsynchronized Access to Shared Data in a Multithreaded Context)
The product does not properly synchronize shared data, such as static variables across threads, which can lead to undefined behavior and unpredictable data changes.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
609
(Double-Checked Locking)
The product uses double-checked locking to access a resource without the overhead of explicit synchronization, but the locking is insufficient.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
662
(Improper Synchronization)
The product utilizes multiple threads, processes, components, or systems to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not properly synchronize these actions, which might cause simultaneous accesses of this resource by multiple threads or processes.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
663
(Use of a Non-reentrant Function in a Concurrent Context)
The product calls a non-reentrant function in a concurrent context in which a competing code sequence (e.g. thread or signal handler) may have an opportunity to call the same function or otherwise influence its state.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
986
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Lock) >
667
(Improper Locking)
The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
987
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Multiple Locks/Unlocks)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Multiple Locks/Unlocks cluster (SFP21).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
987
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Multiple Locks/Unlocks) >
585
(Empty Synchronized Block)
The product contains an empty synchronized block.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
987
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Multiple Locks/Unlocks) >
764
(Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource)
The product locks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
987
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Multiple Locks/Unlocks) >
765
(Multiple Unlocks of a Critical Resource)
The product unlocks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
988
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Race Condition Window cluster (SFP20).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
988
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window) >
362
(Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition'))
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Race Condition
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
988
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
988
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window) >
367
(Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition)
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
TOCTTOU
TOCCTOU
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
988
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window) >
370
(Missing Check for Certificate Revocation after Initial Check)
The product does not check the revocation status of a certificate after its initial revocation check, which can cause the product to perform privileged actions even after the certificate is revoked at a later time.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
988
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window) >
638
(Not Using Complete Mediation)
The product does not perform access checks on a resource every time the resource is accessed by an entity, which can create resultant weaknesses if that entity's rights or privileges change over time.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
989
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Lock)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unrestricted Lock cluster (SFP22).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
894
(SFP Primary Cluster: Synchronization) >
989
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Lock) >
412
(Unrestricted Externally Accessible Lock)
The product properly checks for the existence of a lock, but the lock can be externally controlled or influenced by an actor that is outside of the intended sphere of control.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Information Leak cluster (SFP23).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Exposed Data cluster (SFP23).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
11
(ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary)
Debugging messages help attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
117
(Improper Output Neutralization for Logs)
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
Log forging
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
12
(ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Missing Custom Error Page)
An ASP .NET application must enable custom error pages in order to prevent attackers from mining information from the framework's built-in responses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
13
(ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Password in Configuration File)
Storing a plaintext password in a configuration file allows anyone who can read the file access to the password-protected resource making them an easy target for attackers.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
14
(Compiler Removal of Code to Clear Buffers)
Sensitive memory is cleared according to the source code, but compiler optimizations leave the memory untouched when it is not read from again, aka "dead store removal."
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
200
(Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
Information Disclosure
Information Leak
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
201
(Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data)
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
209
(Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
210
(Self-generated Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
The product identifies an error condition and creates its own diagnostic or error messages that contain sensitive information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
211
(Externally-Generated Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
The product performs an operation that triggers an external diagnostic or error message that is not directly generated or controlled by the product, such as an error generated by the programming language interpreter that a software application uses. The error can contain sensitive system information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
212
(Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer)
The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the resource available to unauthorized actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
213
(Exposure of Sensitive Information Due to Incompatible Policies)
The product's intended functionality exposes information to certain actors in accordance with the developer's security policy, but this information is regarded as sensitive according to the intended security policies of other stakeholders such as the product's administrator, users, or others whose information is being processed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
214
(Invocation of Process Using Visible Sensitive Information)
A process is invoked with sensitive command-line arguments, environment variables, or other elements that can be seen by other processes on the operating system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
215
(Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Debugging Code)
The product inserts sensitive information into debugging code, which could expose this information if the debugging code is not disabled in production.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
219
(Storage of File with Sensitive Data Under Web Root)
The product stores sensitive data under the web document root with insufficient access control, which might make it accessible to untrusted parties.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
220
(Storage of File With Sensitive Data Under FTP Root)
The product stores sensitive data under the FTP server root with insufficient access control, which might make it accessible to untrusted parties.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
226
(Sensitive Information in Resource Not Removed Before Reuse)
The product releases a resource such as memory or a file so that it can be made available for reuse, but it does not clear or "zeroize" the information contained in the resource before the product performs a critical state transition or makes the resource available for reuse by other entities.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
244
(Improper Clearing of Heap Memory Before Release ('Heap Inspection'))
Using realloc() to resize buffers that store sensitive information can leave the sensitive information exposed to attack, because it is not removed from memory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
256
(Plaintext Storage of a Password)
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
257
(Storing Passwords in a Recoverable Format)
The storage of passwords in a recoverable format makes them subject to password reuse attacks by malicious users. In fact, it should be noted that recoverable encrypted passwords provide no significant benefit over plaintext passwords since they are subject not only to reuse by malicious attackers but also by malicious insiders. If a system administrator can recover a password directly, or use a brute force search on the available information, the administrator can use the password on other accounts.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
260
(Password in Configuration File)
The product stores a password in a configuration file that might be accessible to actors who do not know the password.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
311
(Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
312
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
313
(Cleartext Storage in a File or on Disk)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a file, or on disk.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
314
(Cleartext Storage in the Registry)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in the registry.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
315
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in a Cookie)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a cookie.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
316
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Memory)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in memory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
317
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in GUI)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within the GUI.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
318
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Executable)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in an executable.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
319
(Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information)
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
374
(Passing Mutable Objects to an Untrusted Method)
The product sends non-cloned mutable data as an argument to a method or function.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
375
(Returning a Mutable Object to an Untrusted Caller)
Sending non-cloned mutable data as a return value may result in that data being altered or deleted by the calling function.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
402
(Transmission of Private Resources into a New Sphere ('Resource Leak'))
The product makes resources available to untrusted parties when those resources are only intended to be accessed by the product.
Resource Leak
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
403
(Exposure of File Descriptor to Unintended Control Sphere ('File Descriptor Leak'))
A process does not close sensitive file descriptors before invoking a child process, which allows the child to perform unauthorized I/O operations using those descriptors.
File descriptor leak
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
433
(Unparsed Raw Web Content Delivery)
The product stores raw content or supporting code under the web document root with an extension that is not specifically handled by the server.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
495
(Private Data Structure Returned From A Public Method)
The product has a method that is declared public, but returns a reference to a private data structure, which could then be modified in unexpected ways.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
497
(Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere)
The product does not properly prevent sensitive system-level information from being accessed by unauthorized actors who do not have the same level of access to the underlying system as the product does.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
498
(Cloneable Class Containing Sensitive Information)
The code contains a class with sensitive data, but the class is cloneable. The data can then be accessed by cloning the class.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
499
(Serializable Class Containing Sensitive Data)
The code contains a class with sensitive data, but the class does not explicitly deny serialization. The data can be accessed by serializing the class through another class.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
5
(J2EE Misconfiguration: Data Transmission Without Encryption)
Information sent over a network can be compromised while in transit. An attacker may be able to read or modify the contents if the data are sent in plaintext or are weakly encrypted.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
501
(Trust Boundary Violation)
The product mixes trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure or structured message.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
522
(Insufficiently Protected Credentials)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
523
(Unprotected Transport of Credentials)
Login pages do not use adequate measures to protect the user name and password while they are in transit from the client to the server.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
526
(Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in an Environment Variable)
The product uses an environment variable to store unencrypted sensitive information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
527
(Exposure of Version-Control Repository to an Unauthorized Control Sphere)
The product stores a CVS, git, or other repository in a directory, archive, or other resource that is stored, transferred, or otherwise made accessible to unauthorized actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
528
(Exposure of Core Dump File to an Unauthorized Control Sphere)
The product generates a core dump file in a directory, archive, or other resource that is stored, transferred, or otherwise made accessible to unauthorized actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
529
(Exposure of Access Control List Files to an Unauthorized Control Sphere)
The product stores access control list files in a directory or other container that is accessible to actors outside of the intended control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
530
(Exposure of Backup File to an Unauthorized Control Sphere)
A backup file is stored in a directory or archive that is made accessible to unauthorized actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
532
(Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File)
The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
535
(Exposure of Information Through Shell Error Message)
A command shell error message indicates that there exists an unhandled exception in the web application code. In many cases, an attacker can leverage the conditions that cause these errors in order to gain unauthorized access to the system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
536
(Servlet Runtime Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
A servlet error message indicates that there exists an unhandled exception in the web application code and may provide useful information to an attacker.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
537
(Java Runtime Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
In many cases, an attacker can leverage the conditions that cause unhandled exception errors in order to gain unauthorized access to the system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
538
(Insertion of Sensitive Information into Externally-Accessible File or Directory)
The product places sensitive information into files or directories that are accessible to actors who are allowed to have access to the files, but not to the sensitive information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
539
(Use of Persistent Cookies Containing Sensitive Information)
The web application uses persistent cookies, but the cookies contain sensitive information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
540
(Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Source Code)
Source code on a web server or repository often contains sensitive information and should generally not be accessible to users.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
541
(Inclusion of Sensitive Information in an Include File)
If an include file source is accessible, the file can contain usernames and passwords, as well as sensitive information pertaining to the application and system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
546
(Suspicious Comment)
The code contains comments that suggest the presence of bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
548
(Exposure of Information Through Directory Listing)
The product inappropriately exposes a directory listing with an index of all the resources located inside of the directory.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
550
(Server-generated Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
Certain conditions, such as network failure, will cause a server error message to be displayed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
552
(Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties)
The product makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
555
(J2EE Misconfiguration: Plaintext Password in Configuration File)
The J2EE application stores a plaintext password in a configuration file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
591
(Sensitive Data Storage in Improperly Locked Memory)
The product stores sensitive data in memory that is not locked, or that has been incorrectly locked, which might cause the memory to be written to swap files on disk by the virtual memory manager. This can make the data more accessible to external actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
598
(Use of GET Request Method With Sensitive Query Strings)
The web application uses the HTTP GET method to process a request and includes sensitive information in the query string of that request.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
607
(Public Static Final Field References Mutable Object)
A public or protected static final field references a mutable object, which allows the object to be changed by malicious code, or accidentally from another package.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
612
(Improper Authorization of Index Containing Sensitive Information)
The product creates a search index of private or sensitive documents, but it does not properly limit index access to actors who are authorized to see the original information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
615
(Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Source Code Comments)
While adding general comments is very useful, some programmers tend to leave important data, such as: filenames related to the web application, old links or links which were not meant to be browsed by users, old code fragments, etc.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
642
(External Control of Critical State Data)
The product stores security-critical state information about its users, or the product itself, in a location that is accessible to unauthorized actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
668
(Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere)
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
669
(Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres)
The product does not properly transfer a resource/behavior to another sphere, or improperly imports a resource/behavior from another sphere, in a manner that provides unintended control over that resource.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
7
(J2EE Misconfiguration: Missing Custom Error Page)
The default error page of a web application should not display sensitive information about the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
756
(Missing Custom Error Page)
The product does not return custom error pages to the user, possibly exposing sensitive information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
767
(Access to Critical Private Variable via Public Method)
The product defines a public method that reads or modifies a private variable.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
963
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data) >
8
(J2EE Misconfiguration: Entity Bean Declared Remote)
When an application exposes a remote interface for an entity bean, it might also expose methods that get or set the bean's data. These methods could be leveraged to read sensitive information, or to change data in ways that violate the application's expectations, potentially leading to other vulnerabilities.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
964
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposure Temporary File)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Exposure Temporary File cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
964
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposure Temporary File) >
377
(Insecure Temporary File)
Creating and using insecure temporary files can leave application and system data vulnerable to attack.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
964
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposure Temporary File) >
378
(Creation of Temporary File With Insecure Permissions)
Opening temporary files without appropriate measures or controls can leave the file, its contents and any function that it impacts vulnerable to attack.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
964
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposure Temporary File) >
379
(Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Insecure Permissions)
The product creates a temporary file in a directory whose permissions allow unintended actors to determine the file's existence or otherwise access that file.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
965
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Session Management)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Session Management cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
965
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Session Management) >
488
(Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session)
The product does not sufficiently enforce boundaries between the states of different sessions, causing data to be provided to, or used by, the wrong session.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
965
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Session Management) >
524
(Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information)
The code uses a cache that contains sensitive information, but the cache can be read by an actor outside of the intended control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
965
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Session Management) >
6
(J2EE Misconfiguration: Insufficient Session-ID Length)
The J2EE application is configured to use an insufficient session ID length.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Other Exposures cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures) >
453
(Insecure Default Variable Initialization)
The product, by default, initializes an internal variable with an insecure or less secure value than is possible.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures) >
487
(Reliance on Package-level Scope)
Java packages are not inherently closed; therefore, relying on them for code security is not a good practice.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures) >
492
(Use of Inner Class Containing Sensitive Data)
Inner classes are translated into classes that are accessible at package scope and may expose code that the programmer intended to keep private to attackers.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures) >
525
(Use of Web Browser Cache Containing Sensitive Information)
The web application does not use an appropriate caching policy that specifies the extent to which each web page and associated form fields should be cached.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures) >
614
(Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute)
The Secure attribute for sensitive cookies in HTTPS sessions is not set.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
966
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Other Exposures) >
651
(Exposure of WSDL File Containing Sensitive Information)
The Web services architecture may require exposing a Web Service Definition Language (WSDL) file that contains information on the publicly accessible services and how callers of these services should interact with them (e.g. what parameters they expect and what types they return).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the State Disclosure cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
202
(Exposure of Sensitive Information Through Data Queries)
When trying to keep information confidential, an attacker can often infer some of the information by using statistics.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
203
(Observable Discrepancy)
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor, which exposes security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
Side Channel Attack
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
204
(Observable Response Discrepancy)
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
205
(Observable Behavioral Discrepancy)
The product's behaviors indicate important differences that may be observed by unauthorized actors in a way that reveals (1) its internal state or decision process, or (2) differences from other products with equivalent functionality.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
206
(Observable Internal Behavioral Discrepancy)
The product performs multiple behaviors that are combined to produce a single result, but the individual behaviors are observable separately in a way that allows attackers to reveal internal state or internal decision points.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
207
(Observable Behavioral Discrepancy With Equivalent Products)
The product operates in an environment in which its existence or specific identity should not be known, but it behaves differently than other products with equivalent functionality, in a way that is observable to an attacker.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
895
(SFP Primary Cluster: Information Leak) >
967
(SFP Secondary Cluster: State Disclosure) >
208
(Observable Timing Discrepancy)
Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input cluster (SFP24, SFP25, SFP26, SFP27).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input to Command cluster (SFP24).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
102
(Struts: Duplicate Validation Forms)
The product uses multiple validation forms with the same name, which might cause the Struts Validator to validate a form that the programmer does not expect.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
103
(Struts: Incomplete validate() Method Definition)
The product has a validator form that either does not define a validate() method, or defines a validate() method but does not call super.validate().
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
104
(Struts: Form Bean Does Not Extend Validation Class)
If a form bean does not extend an ActionForm subclass of the Validator framework, it can expose the application to other weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
105
(Struts: Form Field Without Validator)
The product has a form field that is not validated by a corresponding validation form, which can introduce other weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
106
(Struts: Plug-in Framework not in Use)
When an application does not use an input validation framework such as the Struts Validator, there is a greater risk of introducing weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
107
(Struts: Unused Validation Form)
An unused validation form indicates that validation logic is not up-to-date.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
108
(Struts: Unvalidated Action Form)
Every Action Form must have a corresponding validation form.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
109
(Struts: Validator Turned Off)
Automatic filtering via a Struts bean has been turned off, which disables the Struts Validator and custom validation logic. This exposes the application to other weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
110
(Struts: Validator Without Form Field)
Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
112
(Missing XML Validation)
The product accepts XML from an untrusted source but does not validate the XML against the proper schema.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
113
(Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting'))
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers.
HTTP Request Splitting
HTTP Response Splitting
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
130
(Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency)
The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the associated data.
length manipulation
length tampering
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
138
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as control elements or syntactic markers when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
140
(Improper Neutralization of Delimiters)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
141
(Improper Neutralization of Parameter/Argument Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as parameter or argument delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
142
(Improper Neutralization of Value Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as value delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
143
(Improper Neutralization of Record Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as record delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
144
(Improper Neutralization of Line Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as line delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
145
(Improper Neutralization of Section Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as section delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
146
(Improper Neutralization of Expression/Command Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as expression or command delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
147
(Improper Neutralization of Input Terminators)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as input terminators when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
148
(Improper Neutralization of Input Leaders)
The product does not properly handle when a leading character or sequence ("leader") is missing or malformed, or if multiple leaders are used when only one should be allowed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
149
(Improper Neutralization of Quoting Syntax)
Quotes injected into a product can be used to compromise a system. As data are parsed, an injected/absent/duplicate/malformed use of quotes may cause the process to take unexpected actions.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
150
(Improper Neutralization of Escape, Meta, or Control Sequences)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta, or control character sequences when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
151
(Improper Neutralization of Comment Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as comment delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
152
(Improper Neutralization of Macro Symbols)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as macro symbols when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
153
(Improper Neutralization of Substitution Characters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as substitution characters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
154
(Improper Neutralization of Variable Name Delimiters)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as variable name delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
155
(Improper Neutralization of Wildcards or Matching Symbols)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as wildcards or matching symbols when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
156
(Improper Neutralization of Whitespace)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as whitespace when they are sent to a downstream component.
White space
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
157
(Failure to Sanitize Paired Delimiters)
The product does not properly handle the characters that are used to mark the beginning and ending of a group of entities, such as parentheses, brackets, and braces.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
158
(Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
159
(Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements)
The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect on its behavior and integrity.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
160
(Improper Neutralization of Leading Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes leading special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
161
(Improper Neutralization of Multiple Leading Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes multiple leading special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
162
(Improper Neutralization of Trailing Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes trailing special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
163
(Improper Neutralization of Multiple Trailing Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes multiple trailing special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
164
(Improper Neutralization of Internal Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes internal special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
165
(Improper Neutralization of Multiple Internal Special Elements)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes multiple internal special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
183
(Permissive List of Allowed Inputs)
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are explicitly allowed by policy because the inputs are assumed to be safe, but the list is too permissive - that is, it allows an input that is unsafe, leading to resultant weaknesses.
Allowlist / Allow List
Safelist / Safe List
Whitelist / White List
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
184
(Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs)
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.
Denylist / Deny List
Blocklist / Block List
Blacklist / Black List
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
185
(Incorrect Regular Expression)
The product specifies a regular expression in a way that causes data to be improperly matched or compared.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
186
(Overly Restrictive Regular Expression)
A regular expression is overly restrictive, which prevents dangerous values from being detected.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
444
(Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling'))
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent
(such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two
entities such as a client and server, but it does not
interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that
are consistent with how the messages will be processed by
those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
HTTP Request Smuggling
HTTP Response Smuggling
HTTP Smuggling
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
553
(Command Shell in Externally Accessible Directory)
A possible shell file exists in /cgi-bin/ or other accessible directories. This is extremely dangerous and can be used by an attacker to execute commands on the web server.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
554
(ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Not Using Input Validation Framework)
The ASP.NET application does not use an input validation framework.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
564
(SQL Injection: Hibernate)
Using Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with user-controlled input can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
601
(URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect'))
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Open Redirect
Cross-site Redirect
Cross-domain Redirect
Unvalidated Redirect
Drive-by download
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
611
(Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference)
The product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product to embed incorrect documents into its output.
XXE
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
619
(Dangling Database Cursor ('Cursor Injection'))
If a database cursor is not closed properly, then it could become accessible to other users while retaining the same privileges that were originally assigned, leaving the cursor "dangling."
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
621
(Variable Extraction Error)
The product uses external input to determine the names of variables into which information is extracted, without verifying that the names of the specified variables are valid. This could cause the program to overwrite unintended variables.
Variable overwrite
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
624
(Executable Regular Expression Error)
The product uses a regular expression that either (1) contains an executable component with user-controlled inputs, or (2) allows a user to enable execution by inserting pattern modifiers.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
625
(Permissive Regular Expression)
The product uses a regular expression that does not sufficiently restrict the set of allowed values.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
626
(Null Byte Interaction Error (Poison Null Byte))
The product does not properly handle null bytes or NUL characters when passing data between different representations or components.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
627
(Dynamic Variable Evaluation)
In a language where the user can influence the name of a variable at runtime, if the variable names are not controlled, an attacker can read or write to arbitrary variables, or access arbitrary functions.
Dynamic evaluation
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
641
(Improper Restriction of Names for Files and Other Resources)
The product constructs the name of a file or other resource using input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the resulting name.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
643
(Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection'))
The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XPath expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
644
(Improper Neutralization of HTTP Headers for Scripting Syntax)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes web scripting syntax in HTTP headers that can be used by web browser components that can process raw headers, such as Flash.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
646
(Reliance on File Name or Extension of Externally-Supplied File)
The product allows a file to be uploaded, but it relies on the file name or extension of the file to determine the appropriate behaviors. This could be used by attackers to cause the file to be misclassified and processed in a dangerous fashion.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
652
(Improper Neutralization of Data within XQuery Expressions ('XQuery Injection'))
The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XQuery expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
687
(Function Call With Incorrectly Specified Argument Value)
The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies an argument that contains the wrong value, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
707
(Improper Neutralization)
The product does not ensure or incorrectly ensures that structured messages or data are well-formed and that certain security properties are met before being read from an upstream component or sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
74
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
75
(Failure to Sanitize Special Elements into a Different Plane (Special Element Injection))
The product does not adequately filter user-controlled input for special elements with control implications.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
76
(Improper Neutralization of Equivalent Special Elements)
The product correctly neutralizes certain special elements, but it improperly neutralizes equivalent special elements.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
77
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Command injection
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
78
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Shell injection
Shell metacharacters
OS Command Injection
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
79
(Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'))
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
XSS
HTML Injection
Reflected XSS / Non-Persistent XSS / Type 1 XSS
Stored XSS / Persistent XSS / Type 2 XSS
DOM-Based XSS / Type 0 XSS
CSS
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
80
(Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters such as "<", ">", and "&" that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to a downstream component that processes web pages.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
81
(Improper Neutralization of Script in an Error Message Web Page)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to an error page.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
82
(Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes of IMG Tags in a Web Page)
The web application does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes scripting elements within attributes of HTML IMG tags, such as the src attribute.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
83
(Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes in a Web Page)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes "javascript:" or other URIs from dangerous attributes within tags, such as onmouseover, onload, onerror, or style.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
84
(Improper Neutralization of Encoded URI Schemes in a Web Page)
The web application improperly neutralizes user-controlled input for executable script disguised with URI encodings.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
85
(Doubled Character XSS Manipulations)
The web application does not filter user-controlled input for executable script disguised using doubling of the involved characters.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
86
(Improper Neutralization of Invalid Characters in Identifiers in Web Pages)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes invalid characters or byte sequences in the middle of tag names, URI schemes, and other identifiers.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
87
(Improper Neutralization of Alternate XSS Syntax)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controlled input for alternate script syntax.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
89
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
SQL injection
SQLi
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
90
(Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
91
(XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection))
The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
93
(Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection'))
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
95
(Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. "eval").
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
96
(Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before inserting the input into an executable resource, such as a library, configuration file, or template.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
97
(Improper Neutralization of Server-Side Includes (SSI) Within a Web Page)
The product generates a web page, but does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input that could be interpreted as a server-side include (SSI) directive.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
990
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command) >
99
(Improper Control of Resource Identifiers ('Resource Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended sphere of control.
Insecure Direct Object Reference
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input to Environment cluster (SFP27).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
114
(Process Control)
Executing commands or loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands (and payloads) on behalf of an attacker.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
427
(Uncontrolled Search Path Element)
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
DLL preloading
Binary planting
Insecure library loading
Dependency confusion
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
470
(Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection'))
The product uses external input with reflection to select which classes or code to use, but it does not sufficiently prevent the input from selecting improper classes or code.
Reflection Injection
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
471
(Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID))
The product does not properly protect an assumed-immutable element from being modified by an attacker.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
472
(External Control of Assumed-Immutable Web Parameter)
The web application does not sufficiently verify inputs that are assumed to be immutable but are actually externally controllable, such as hidden form fields.
Assumed-Immutable Parameter Tampering
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
473
(PHP External Variable Modification)
A PHP application does not properly protect against the modification of variables from external sources, such as query parameters or cookies. This can expose the application to numerous weaknesses that would not exist otherwise.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
494
(Download of Code Without Integrity Check)
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
622
(Improper Validation of Function Hook Arguments)
The product adds hooks to user-accessible API functions, but it does not properly validate the arguments. This could lead to resultant vulnerabilities.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
673
(External Influence of Sphere Definition)
The product does not prevent the definition of control spheres from external actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
991
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment) >
94
(Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
Code Injection
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Input Transformation cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
116
(Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output)
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved.
Output Sanitization
Output Validation
Output Encoding
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
166
(Improper Handling of Missing Special Element)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles when an expected special element is missing.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
167
(Improper Handling of Additional Special Element)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles when an additional unexpected special element is provided.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
168
(Improper Handling of Inconsistent Special Elements)
The product does not properly handle input in which an inconsistency exists between two or more special characters or reserved words.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
172
(Encoding Error)
The product does not properly encode or decode the data, resulting in unexpected values.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
173
(Improper Handling of Alternate Encoding)
The product does not properly handle when an input uses an alternate encoding that is valid for the control sphere to which the input is being sent.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
174
(Double Decoding of the Same Data)
The product decodes the same input twice, which can limit the effectiveness of any protection mechanism that occurs in between the decoding operations.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
175
(Improper Handling of Mixed Encoding)
The product does not properly handle when the same input uses several different (mixed) encodings.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
176
(Improper Handling of Unicode Encoding)
The product does not properly handle when an input contains Unicode encoding.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
177
(Improper Handling of URL Encoding (Hex Encoding))
The product does not properly handle when all or part of an input has been URL encoded.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
178
(Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity)
The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
179
(Incorrect Behavior Order: Early Validation)
The product validates input before applying protection mechanisms that modify the input, which could allow an attacker to bypass the validation via dangerous inputs that only arise after the modification.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
180
(Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize)
The product validates input before it is canonicalized, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the canonicalization step.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
181
(Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Filter)
The product validates data before it has been filtered, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the filtering step.
Validate-before-cleanse
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
992
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Input Transformation) >
182
(Collapse of Data into Unsafe Value)
The product filters data in a way that causes it to be reduced or "collapsed" into an unsafe value that violates an expected security property.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Incorrect Input Handling cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
198
(Use of Incorrect Byte Ordering)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not account for byte ordering (e.g. big-endian and little-endian) when processing the input, causing an incorrect number or value to be used.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
228
(Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles input that is not syntactically well-formed with respect to the associated specification.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
229
(Improper Handling of Values)
The product does not properly handle when the expected number of values for parameters, fields, or arguments is not provided in input, or if those values are undefined.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
230
(Improper Handling of Missing Values)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a parameter, field, or argument name is specified, but the associated value is missing, i.e. it is empty, blank, or null.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
231
(Improper Handling of Extra Values)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when more values are provided than expected.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
232
(Improper Handling of Undefined Values)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a value is not defined or supported for the associated parameter, field, or argument name.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
233
(Improper Handling of Parameters)
The product does not properly handle when the expected number of parameters, fields, or arguments is not provided in input, or if those parameters are undefined.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
234
(Failure to Handle Missing Parameter)
If too few arguments are sent to a function, the function will still pop the expected number of arguments from the stack. Potentially, a variable number of arguments could be exhausted in a function as well.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
235
(Improper Handling of Extra Parameters)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when the number of parameters, fields, or arguments with the same name exceeds the expected amount.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
236
(Improper Handling of Undefined Parameters)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular parameter, field, or argument name is not defined or supported by the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
237
(Improper Handling of Structural Elements)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles inputs that are related to complex structures.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
238
(Improper Handling of Incomplete Structural Elements)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular structural element is not completely specified.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
239
(Failure to Handle Incomplete Element)
The product does not properly handle when a particular element is not completely specified.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
240
(Improper Handling of Inconsistent Structural Elements)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when two or more structural elements should be consistent, but are not.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
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).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
351
(Insufficient Type Distinction)
The product does not properly distinguish between different types of elements in a way that leads to insecure behavior.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
993
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Incorrect Input Handling) >
354
(Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value)
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input to Variable cluster (SFP25).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
15
(External Control of System or Configuration Setting)
One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
454
(External Initialization of Trusted Variables or Data Stores)
The product initializes critical internal variables or data stores using inputs that can be modified by untrusted actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
496
(Public Data Assigned to Private Array-Typed Field)
Assigning public data to a private array is equivalent to giving public access to the array.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
502
(Deserialization of Untrusted Data)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Marshaling, Unmarshaling
Pickling, Unpickling
PHP Object Injection
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
566
(Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key)
The product uses a database table that includes records that should not be accessible to an actor, but it executes a SQL statement with a primary key that can be controlled by that actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
606
(Unchecked Input for Loop Condition)
The product does not properly check inputs that are used for loop conditions, potentially leading to a denial of service or other consequences because of excessive looping.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
896
(SFP Primary Cluster: Tainted Input) >
994
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable) >
616
(Incomplete Identification of Uploaded File Variables (PHP))
The PHP application uses an old method for processing uploaded files by referencing the four global variables that are set for each file (e.g. $varname, $varname_size, $varname_name, $varname_type). These variables could be overwritten by attackers, causing the application to process unauthorized files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Entry Points cluster (SFP28).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unexpected Entry Points cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
489
(Active Debug Code)
The product is released with debugging code still enabled or active.
Leftover debug code
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
491
(Public cloneable() Method Without Final ('Object Hijack'))
A class has a cloneable() method that is not declared final, which allows an object to be created without calling the constructor. This can cause the object to be in an unexpected state.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
493
(Critical Public Variable Without Final Modifier)
The product has a critical public variable that is not final, which allows the variable to be modified to contain unexpected values.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
500
(Public Static Field Not Marked Final)
An object contains a public static field that is not marked final, which might allow it to be modified in unexpected ways.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
531
(Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Test Code)
Accessible test applications can pose a variety of security risks. Since developers or administrators rarely consider that someone besides themselves would even know about the existence of these applications, it is common for them to contain sensitive information or functions.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
568
(finalize() Method Without super.finalize())
The product contains a finalize() method that does not call super.finalize().
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
580
(clone() Method Without super.clone())
The product contains a clone() method that does not call super.clone() to obtain the new object.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
582
(Array Declared Public, Final, and Static)
The product declares an array public, final, and static, which is not sufficient to prevent the array's contents from being modified.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
583
(finalize() Method Declared Public)
The product violates secure coding principles for mobile code by declaring a finalize() method public.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
608
(Struts: Non-private Field in ActionForm Class)
An ActionForm class contains a field that has not been declared private, which can be accessed without using a setter or getter.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
897
(SFP Primary Cluster: Entry Points) >
1002
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points) >
766
(Critical Data Element Declared Public)
The product declares a critical variable, field, or member to be public when intended security policy requires it to be private.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Authentication cluster (SFP29, SFP30, SFP31, SFP32, SFP33, SFP34).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Authentication Bypass cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
287
(Improper Authentication)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
authentification
AuthN
AuthC
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
288
(Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel)
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
289
(Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name)
The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
303
(Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
304
(Missing Critical Step in Authentication)
The product implements an authentication technique, but it skips a step that weakens the technique.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
305
(Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness)
The authentication algorithm is sound, but the implemented mechanism can be bypassed as the result of a separate weakness that is primary to the authentication error.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
308
(Use of Single-factor Authentication)
The product uses an authentication algorithm that uses a single factor (e.g., a password) in a security context that should require more than one factor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
309
(Use of Password System for Primary Authentication)
The use of password systems as the primary means of authentication may be subject to several flaws or shortcomings, each reducing the effectiveness of the mechanism.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
947
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass) >
603
(Use of Client-Side Authentication)
A client/server product performs authentication within client code but not in server code, allowing server-side authentication to be bypassed via a modified client that omits the authentication check.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Digital Certificate cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate) >
296
(Improper Following of a Certificate's Chain of Trust)
The product does not follow, or incorrectly follows, the chain of trust for a certificate back to a trusted root certificate, resulting in incorrect trust of any resource that is associated with that certificate.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate) >
297
(Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch)
The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate) >
298
(Improper Validation of Certificate Expiration)
A certificate expiration is not validated or is incorrectly validated, so trust may be assigned to certificates that have been abandoned due to age.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate) >
299
(Improper Check for Certificate Revocation)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks the revocation status of a certificate, which may cause it to use a certificate that has been compromised.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate) >
593
(Authentication Bypass: OpenSSL CTX Object Modified after SSL Objects are Created)
The product modifies the SSL context after connection creation has begun.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
948
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Digital Certificate) >
599
(Missing Validation of OpenSSL Certificate)
The product uses OpenSSL and trusts or uses a certificate without using the SSL_get_verify_result() function to ensure that the certificate satisfies all necessary security requirements.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Endpoint Authentication cluster (SFP29).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
293
(Using Referer Field for Authentication)
The referer field in HTTP requests can be easily modified and, as such, is not a valid means of message integrity checking.
referrer
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
302
(Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data)
The authentication scheme or implementation uses key data elements that are assumed to be immutable, but can be controlled or modified by the attacker.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
345
(Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity)
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
346
(Origin Validation Error)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
350
(Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action)
The product performs reverse DNS resolution on an IP address to obtain the hostname and make a security decision, but it does not properly ensure that the IP address is truly associated with the hostname.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
360
(Trust of System Event Data)
Security based on event locations are insecure and can be spoofed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
551
(Incorrect Behavior Order: Authorization Before Parsing and Canonicalization)
If a web server does not fully parse requested URLs before it examines them for authorization, it may be possible for an attacker to bypass authorization protection.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
565
(Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking)
The product relies on the existence or values of cookies when performing security-critical operations, but it does not properly ensure that the setting is valid for the associated user.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
949
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication) >
647
(Use of Non-Canonical URL Paths for Authorization Decisions)
The product defines policy namespaces and makes authorization decisions based on the assumption that a URL is canonical. This can allow a non-canonical URL to bypass the authorization.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
950
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Hardcoded Sensitive Data)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Hardcoded Sensitive Data cluster (SFP33).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
950
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Hardcoded Sensitive Data) >
258
(Empty Password in Configuration File)
Using an empty string as a password is insecure.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
950
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Hardcoded Sensitive Data) >
259
(Use of Hard-coded Password)
The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
950
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Hardcoded Sensitive Data) >
321
(Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
950
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Hardcoded Sensitive Data) >
547
(Use of Hard-coded, Security-relevant Constants)
The product uses hard-coded constants instead of symbolic names for security-critical values, which increases the likelihood of mistakes during code maintenance or security policy change.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Authentication Policy cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy) >
262
(Not Using Password Aging)
The product does not have a mechanism in place for managing password aging.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy) >
263
(Password Aging with Long Expiration)
The product supports password aging, but the expiration period is too long.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy) >
521
(Weak Password Requirements)
The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy) >
556
(ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Use of Identity Impersonation)
Configuring an ASP.NET application to run with impersonated credentials may give the application unnecessary privileges.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy) >
613
(Insufficient Session Expiration)
According to WASC, "Insufficient Session Expiration is when a web site permits an attacker to reuse old session credentials or session IDs for authorization."
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
951
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Authentication Policy) >
645
(Overly Restrictive Account Lockout Mechanism)
The product contains an account lockout protection mechanism, but the mechanism is too restrictive and can be triggered too easily, which allows attackers to deny service to legitimate users by causing their accounts to be locked out.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
952
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Authentication)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Missing Authentication cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
952
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Authentication) >
306
(Missing Authentication for Critical Function)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
952
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Authentication) >
620
(Unverified Password Change)
When setting a new password for a user, the product does not require knowledge of the original password, or using another form of authentication.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
953
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Endpoint Authentication)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Missing Endpoint Authentication cluster (SFP30).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
953
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Endpoint Authentication) >
422
(Unprotected Windows Messaging Channel ('Shatter'))
The product does not properly verify the source of a message in the Windows Messaging System while running at elevated privileges, creating an alternate channel through which an attacker can directly send a message to the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
953
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Endpoint Authentication) >
425
(Direct Request ('Forced Browsing'))
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
forced browsing
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
954
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Multiple Binds to the Same Port)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Multiple Binds to the Same Port cluster (SFP32).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
954
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Multiple Binds to the Same Port) >
605
(Multiple Binds to the Same Port)
When multiple sockets are allowed to bind to the same port, other services on that port may be stolen or spoofed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
955
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Authentication)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unrestricted Authentication cluster (SFP34).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
898
(SFP Primary Cluster: Authentication) >
955
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Unrestricted Authentication) >
307
(Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Access Control cluster (SFP35).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
944
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Access Management cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
944
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management) >
282
(Improper Ownership Management)
The product assigns the wrong ownership, or does not properly verify the ownership, of an object or resource.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
944
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management) >
283
(Unverified Ownership)
The product does not properly verify that a critical resource is owned by the proper entity.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
944
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management) >
284
(Improper Access Control)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
Authorization
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
944
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management) >
286
(Incorrect User Management)
The product does not properly manage a user within its environment.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
944
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Access Management) >
708
(Incorrect Ownership Assignment)
The product assigns an owner to a resource, but the owner is outside of the intended control sphere.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
945
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Access)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Resource Access cluster (SFP35).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
945
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Access) >
285
(Improper Authorization)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
AuthZ
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
945
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Access) >
424
(Improper Protection of Alternate Path)
The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
945
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Access) >
639
(Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Insecure Direct Object Reference / IDOR
Broken Object Level Authorization / BOLA
Horizontal Authorization
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
945
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Access) >
650
(Trusting HTTP Permission Methods on the Server Side)
The server contains a protection mechanism that assumes that any URI that is accessed using HTTP GET will not cause a state change to the associated resource. This might allow attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and conduct resource modification and deletion attacks, since some applications allow GET to modify state.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Resource Permissions cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
276
(Incorrect Default Permissions)
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
277
(Insecure Inherited Permissions)
A product defines a set of insecure permissions that are inherited by objects that are created by the program.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
278
(Insecure Preserved Inherited Permissions)
A product inherits a set of insecure permissions for an object, e.g. when copying from an archive file, without user awareness or involvement.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
279
(Incorrect Execution-Assigned Permissions)
While it is executing, the product sets the permissions of an object in a way that violates the intended permissions that have been specified by the user.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
281
(Improper Preservation of Permissions)
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
560
(Use of umask() with chmod-style Argument)
The product calls umask() with an incorrect argument that is specified as if it is an argument to chmod().
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
899
(SFP Primary Cluster: Access Control) >
946
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Permissions) >
732
(Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Privilege cluster (SFP36).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
250
(Execution with Unnecessary Privileges)
The product performs an operation at a privilege level that is higher than the minimum level required, which creates new weaknesses or amplifies the consequences of other weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
266
(Incorrect Privilege Assignment)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
267
(Privilege Defined With Unsafe Actions)
A particular privilege, role, capability, or right can be used to perform unsafe actions that were not intended, even when it is assigned to the correct entity.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
268
(Privilege Chaining)
Two distinct privileges, roles, capabilities, or rights can be combined in a way that allows an entity to perform unsafe actions that would not be allowed without that combination.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
269
(Improper Privilege Management)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
270
(Privilege Context Switching Error)
The product does not properly manage privileges while it is switching between different contexts that have different privileges or spheres of control.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
271
(Privilege Dropping / Lowering Errors)
The product does not drop privileges before passing control of a resource to an actor that does not have those privileges.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
272
(Least Privilege Violation)
The elevated privilege level required to perform operations such as chroot() should be dropped immediately after the operation is performed.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
274
(Improper Handling of Insufficient Privileges)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to perform an operation, leading to resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
520
(.NET Misconfiguration: Use of Impersonation)
Allowing a .NET application to run at potentially escalated levels of access to the underlying operating and file systems can be dangerous and result in various forms of attacks.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
653
(Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization)
The product does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions.
Separation of Privilege
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
901
(SFP Primary Cluster: Privilege) >
9
(J2EE Misconfiguration: Weak Access Permissions for EJB Methods)
If elevated access rights are assigned to EJB methods, then an attacker can take advantage of the permissions to exploit the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Channel cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Channel Attack cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
290
(Authentication Bypass by Spoofing)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
294
(Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
300
(Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint)
The product does not adequately verify the identity of actors at both ends of a communication channel, or does not adequately ensure the integrity of the channel, in a way that allows the channel to be accessed or influenced by an actor that is not an endpoint.
Adversary-in-the-Middle / AITM
Attacker-in-the-Middle / AITM
Man-in-the-Middle / MITM
Person-in-the-Middle / PITM
Monkey-in-the-Middle
Monster-in-the-Middle
Manipulator-in-the-Middle
On-path attack
Interception attack
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
301
(Reflection Attack in an Authentication Protocol)
Simple authentication protocols are subject to reflection attacks if a malicious user can use the target machine to impersonate a trusted user.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
419
(Unprotected Primary Channel)
The product uses a primary channel for administration or restricted functionality, but it does not properly protect the channel.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
420
(Unprotected Alternate Channel)
The product protects a primary channel, but it does not use the same level of protection for an alternate channel.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
421
(Race Condition During Access to Alternate Channel)
The product opens an alternate channel to communicate with an authorized user, but the channel is accessible to other actors.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
956
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack) >
441
(Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy'))
The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor.
Confused Deputy
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
957
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Protocol Error)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Protocol Error cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
957
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Protocol Error) >
353
(Missing Support for Integrity Check)
The product uses a transmission protocol that does not include a mechanism for verifying the integrity of the data during transmission, such as a checksum.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
957
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Protocol Error) >
435
(Improper Interaction Between Multiple Correctly-Behaving Entities)
An interaction error occurs when two entities have correct behavior when running independently of each other, but when they are integrated as components in a larger system or process, they introduce incorrect behaviors that may cause resultant weaknesses.
Interaction Error
Emergent Fault
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
957
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Protocol Error) >
436
(Interpretation Conflict)
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
957
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Protocol Error) >
437
(Incomplete Model of Endpoint Features)
A product acts as an intermediary or monitor between two or more endpoints, but it does not have a complete model of an endpoint's features, behaviors, or state, potentially causing the product to perform incorrect actions based on this incomplete model.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
902
(SFP Primary Cluster: Channel) >
957
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Protocol Error) >
757
(Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade'))
A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Cryptography cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
958
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Broken Cryptography)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Broken Cryptography cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
958
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Broken Cryptography) >
325
(Missing Cryptographic Step)
The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
958
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Broken Cryptography) >
327
(Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
958
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Broken Cryptography) >
328
(Use of Weak Hash)
The product uses an algorithm that produces a digest (output value) that does not meet security expectations for a hash function that allows an adversary to reasonably determine the original input (preimage attack), find another input that can produce the same hash (2nd preimage attack), or find multiple inputs that evaluate to the same hash (birthday attack).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
958
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Broken Cryptography) >
759
(Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product does not also use a salt as part of the input.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
958
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Broken Cryptography) >
760
(Use of a One-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product uses a predictable salt as part of the input.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Weak Cryptography cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
261
(Weak Encoding for Password)
Obscuring a password with a trivial encoding does not protect the password.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
322
(Key Exchange without Entity Authentication)
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
323
(Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption)
Nonces should be used for the present occasion and only once.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
324
(Use of a Key Past its Expiration Date)
The product uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
326
(Inadequate Encryption Strength)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
329
(Generation of Predictable IV with CBC Mode)
The product generates and uses a predictable initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode, which causes algorithms to be susceptible to dictionary attacks when they are encrypted under the same key.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
347
(Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
903
(SFP Primary Cluster: Cryptography) >
959
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Weak Cryptography) >
640
(Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password)
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Malware cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
506
(Embedded Malicious Code)
The product contains code that appears to be malicious in nature.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
507
(Trojan Horse)
The product appears to contain benign or useful functionality, but it also contains code that is hidden from normal operation that violates the intended security policy of the user or the system administrator.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
508
(Non-Replicating Malicious Code)
Non-replicating malicious code only resides on the target system or product that is attacked; it does not attempt to spread to other systems.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
509
(Replicating Malicious Code (Virus or Worm))
Replicating malicious code, including viruses and worms, will attempt to attack other systems once it has successfully compromised the target system or the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
510
(Trapdoor)
A trapdoor is a hidden piece of code that responds to a special input, allowing its user access to resources without passing through the normal security enforcement mechanism.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
511
(Logic/Time Bomb)
The product contains code that is designed to disrupt the legitimate operation of the product (or its environment) when a certain time passes, or when a certain logical condition is met.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
512
(Spyware)
The product collects personally identifiable information about a human user or the user's activities, but the product accesses this information using other resources besides itself, and it does not require that user's explicit approval or direct input into the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
69
(Improper Handling of Windows ::DATA Alternate Data Stream)
The product does not properly prevent access to, or detect usage of, alternate data streams (ADS).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
968
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Covert Channel)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Covert Channel cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
968
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Covert Channel) >
385
(Covert Timing Channel)
Covert timing channels convey information by modulating some aspect of system behavior over time, so that the program receiving the information can observe system behavior and infer protected information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
968
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Covert Channel) >
514
(Covert Channel)
A covert channel is a path that can be used to transfer information in a way not intended by the system's designers.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
904
(SFP Primary Cluster: Malware) >
968
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Covert Channel) >
515
(Covert Storage Channel)
A covert storage channel transfers information through the setting of bits by one program and the reading of those bits by another. What distinguishes this case from that of ordinary operation is that the bits are used to convey encoded information.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Predictability cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
330
(Use of Insufficiently Random Values)
The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
332
(Insufficient Entropy in PRNG)
The lack of entropy available for, or used by, a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) can be a stability and security threat.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
333
(Improper Handling of Insufficient Entropy in TRNG)
True random number generators (TRNG) generally have a limited source of entropy and therefore can fail or block.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
334
(Small Space of Random Values)
The number of possible random values is smaller than needed by the product, making it more susceptible to brute force attacks.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
335
(Incorrect Usage of Seeds in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
336
(Same Seed in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) uses the same seed each time the product is initialized.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
337
(Predictable Seed in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) is initialized from a predictable seed, such as the process ID or system time.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
339
(Small Seed Space in PRNG)
A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) uses a relatively small seed space, which makes it more susceptible to brute force attacks.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
340
(Generation of Predictable Numbers or Identifiers)
The product uses a scheme that generates numbers or identifiers that are more predictable than required.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
341
(Predictable from Observable State)
A number or object is predictable based on observations that the attacker can make about the state of the system or network, such as time, process ID, etc.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
342
(Predictable Exact Value from Previous Values)
An exact value or random number can be precisely predicted by observing previous values.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
343
(Predictable Value Range from Previous Values)
The product's random number generator produces a series of values which, when observed, can be used to infer a relatively small range of possibilities for the next value that could be generated.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
905
(SFP Primary Cluster: Predictability) >
344
(Use of Invariant Value in Dynamically Changing Context)
The product uses a constant value, name, or reference, but this value can (or should) vary across different environments.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the UI cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Feature cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
447
(Unimplemented or Unsupported Feature in UI)
A UI function for a security feature appears to be supported and gives feedback to the user that suggests that it is supported, but the underlying functionality is not implemented.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
448
(Obsolete Feature in UI)
A UI function is obsolete and the product does not warn the user.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
449
(The UI Performs the Wrong Action)
The UI performs the wrong action with respect to the user's request.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
450
(Multiple Interpretations of UI Input)
The UI has multiple interpretations of user input but does not prompt the user when it selects the less secure interpretation.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
451
(User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information)
The user interface (UI) does not properly represent critical information to the user, allowing the information - or its source - to be obscured or spoofed. This is often a component in phishing attacks.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
549
(Missing Password Field Masking)
The product does not mask passwords during entry, increasing the potential for attackers to observe and capture passwords.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
995
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Feature) >
655
(Insufficient Psychological Acceptability)
The product has a protection mechanism that is too difficult or inconvenient to use, encouraging non-malicious users to disable or bypass the mechanism, whether by accident or on purpose.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
996
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Security)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Security cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
996
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Security) >
356
(Product UI does not Warn User of Unsafe Actions)
The product's user interface does not warn the user before undertaking an unsafe action on behalf of that user. This makes it easier for attackers to trick users into inflicting damage to their system.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
996
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Security) >
357
(Insufficient UI Warning of Dangerous Operations)
The user interface provides a warning to a user regarding dangerous or sensitive operations, but the warning is not noticeable enough to warrant attention.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
996
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Security) >
446
(UI Discrepancy for Security Feature)
The user interface does not correctly enable or configure a security feature, but the interface provides feedback that causes the user to believe that the feature is in a secure state.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
997
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Information Loss)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Information Loss cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
997
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Information Loss) >
221
(Information Loss or Omission)
The product does not record, or improperly records, security-relevant information that leads to an incorrect decision or hampers later analysis.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
997
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Information Loss) >
222
(Truncation of Security-relevant Information)
The product truncates the display, recording, or processing of security-relevant information in a way that can obscure the source or nature of an attack.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
997
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Information Loss) >
223
(Omission of Security-relevant Information)
The product does not record or display information that would be important for identifying the source or nature of an attack, or determining if an action is safe.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
906
(SFP Primary Cluster: UI) >
997
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Information Loss) >
224
(Obscured Security-relevant Information by Alternate Name)
The product records security-relevant information according to an alternate name of the affected entity, instead of the canonical name.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Other cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Architecture cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
348
(Use of Less Trusted Source)
The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resistant to attack.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
359
(Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor)
The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected.
Privacy violation
Privacy leak / Privacy leakage
PPI
PII
PHI
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
602
(Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security)
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
637
(Unnecessary Complexity in Protection Mechanism (Not Using 'Economy of Mechanism'))
The product uses a more complex mechanism than necessary, which could lead to resultant weaknesses when the mechanism is not correctly understood, modeled, configured, implemented, or used.
Unnecessary Complexity
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
649
(Reliance on Obfuscation or Encryption of Security-Relevant Inputs without Integrity Checking)
The product uses obfuscation or encryption of inputs that should not be mutable by an external actor, but the product does not use integrity checks to detect if those inputs have been modified.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
654
(Reliance on a Single Factor in a Security Decision)
A protection mechanism relies exclusively, or to a large extent, on the evaluation of a single condition or the integrity of a single object or entity in order to make a decision about granting access to restricted resources or functionality.
Separation of Privilege
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
656
(Reliance on Security Through Obscurity)
The product uses a protection mechanism whose strength depends heavily on its obscurity, such that knowledge of its algorithms or key data is sufficient to defeat the mechanism.
Never Assuming your secrets are safe
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
657
(Violation of Secure Design Principles)
The product violates well-established principles for secure design.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
671
(Lack of Administrator Control over Security)
The product uses security features in a way that prevents the product's administrator from tailoring security settings to reflect the environment in which the product is being used. This introduces resultant weaknesses or prevents it from operating at a level of security that is desired by the administrator.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
693
(Protection Mechanism Failure)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
975
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture) >
749
(Exposed Dangerous Method or Function)
The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous method or function that is not properly restricted.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
976
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Compiler)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Compiler cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
976
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Compiler) >
733
(Compiler Optimization Removal or Modification of Security-critical Code)
The developer builds a security-critical protection mechanism into the software, but the compiler optimizes the program such that the mechanism is removed or modified.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Design cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
115
(Misinterpretation of Input)
The product misinterprets an input, whether from an attacker or another product, in a security-relevant fashion.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
187
(Partial String Comparison)
The product performs a comparison that only examines a portion of a factor before determining whether there is a match, such as a substring, leading to resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
188
(Reliance on Data/Memory Layout)
The product makes invalid assumptions about how protocol data or memory is organized at a lower level, resulting in unintended program behavior.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
193
(Off-by-one Error)
A product calculates or uses an incorrect maximum or minimum value that is 1 more, or 1 less, than the correct value.
off-by-five
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
349
(Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data)
The product, when processing trusted data, accepts any untrusted data that is also included with the trusted data, treating the untrusted data as if it were trusted.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
405
(Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification))
The product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary to invest equivalent work or otherwise prove authorization, i.e., the adversary's influence is "asymmetric."
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
406
(Insufficient Control of Network Message Volume (Network Amplification))
The product does not sufficiently monitor or control transmitted network traffic volume, so that an actor can cause the product to transmit more traffic than should be allowed for that actor.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
407
(Inefficient Algorithmic Complexity)
An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typically using crafted manipulations that ensure that the worst case is being reached.
Quadratic Complexity
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
408
(Incorrect Behavior Order: Early Amplification)
The product allows an entity to perform a legitimate but expensive operation before authentication or authorization has taken place.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
409
(Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification))
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a compressed input with a very high compression ratio that produces a large output.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
410
(Insufficient Resource Pool)
The product's resource pool is not large enough to handle peak demand, which allows an attacker to prevent others from accessing the resource by using a (relatively) large number of requests for resources.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
430
(Deployment of Wrong Handler)
The wrong "handler" is assigned to process an object.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
462
(Duplicate Key in Associative List (Alist))
Duplicate keys in associative lists can lead to non-unique keys being mistaken for an error.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
463
(Deletion of Data Structure Sentinel)
The accidental deletion of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
464
(Addition of Data Structure Sentinel)
The accidental addition of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
483
(Incorrect Block Delimitation)
The code does not explicitly delimit a block that is intended to contain 2 or more statements, creating a logic error.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
581
(Object Model Violation: Just One of Equals and Hashcode Defined)
The product does not maintain equal hashcodes for equal objects.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
595
(Comparison of Object References Instead of Object Contents)
The product compares object references instead of the contents of the objects themselves, preventing it from detecting equivalent objects.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
618
(Exposed Unsafe ActiveX Method)
An ActiveX control is intended for use in a web browser, but it exposes dangerous methods that perform actions that are outside of the browser's security model (e.g. the zone or domain).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
648
(Incorrect Use of Privileged APIs)
The product does not conform to the API requirements for a function call that requires extra privileges. This could allow attackers to gain privileges by causing the function to be called incorrectly.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
670
(Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation)
The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
691
(Insufficient Control Flow Management)
The code does not sufficiently manage its control flow during execution, creating conditions in which the control flow can be modified in unexpected ways.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
696
(Incorrect Behavior Order)
The product performs multiple related behaviors, but the behaviors are performed in the wrong order in ways that may produce resultant weaknesses.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
697
(Incorrect Comparison)
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
698
(Execution After Redirect (EAR))
The web application sends a redirect to another location, but instead of exiting, it executes additional code.
Redirect Without Exit
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
977
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Design) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
978
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Implementation)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Implementation cluster.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
978
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Implementation) >
358
(Improperly Implemented Security Check for Standard)
The product does not implement or incorrectly implements one or more security-relevant checks as specified by the design of a standardized algorithm, protocol, or technique.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
978
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Implementation) >
398
(7PK - Code Quality)
This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that do not directly introduce a weakness or vulnerability, but indicate that the product has not been carefully developed or maintained. According to the authors of the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms, "Poor code quality leads to unpredictable behavior. From a user's perspective that often manifests itself as poor usability. For an adversary it provides an opportunity to stress the system in unexpected ways."
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
978
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Implementation) >
623
(Unsafe ActiveX Control Marked Safe For Scripting)
An ActiveX control is intended for restricted use, but it has been marked as safe-for-scripting.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
907
(SFP Primary Cluster: Other) >
978
(SFP Secondary Cluster: Implementation) >
710
(Improper Adherence to Coding Standards)
The product does not follow certain coding rules for development, which can lead to resultant weaknesses or increase the severity of the associated vulnerabilities.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
1237
(SFP Primary Cluster: Faulty Resource Release)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Resource Release cluster (SFP37).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
1237
(SFP Primary Cluster: Faulty Resource Release) >
415
(Double Free)
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
Double-free
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
1237
(SFP Primary Cluster: Faulty Resource Release) >
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.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
1237
(SFP Primary Cluster: Faulty Resource Release) >
763
(Release of Invalid Pointer or Reference)
The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
1238
(SFP Primary Cluster: Failure to Release Memory)
This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Failure to Release Memory cluster (SFP38).
888
(Software Fault Pattern (SFP) Clusters) >
1238
(SFP Primary Cluster: Failure to Release Memory) >
401
(Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime)
The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, making the memory unavailable for reallocation and reuse.
Memory Leak
View ComponentsA | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z
CWE-36: Absolute Path Traversal
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 In the example below, the path to a dictionary file is read from a system property and used to initialize a File object. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String filename = System.getProperty("com.domain.application.dictionaryFile");
File dictionaryFile = new File(filename); However, the path is not validated or modified to prevent it from containing relative or absolute path sequences before creating the File object. This allows anyone who can control the system property to determine what file is used. Ideally, the path should be resolved relative to some kind of application or user home directory. Example 2 This script intends to read a user-supplied file from the current directory. The user inputs the relative path to the file and the script uses Python's os.path.join() function to combine the path to the current working directory with the provided path to the specified file. This results in an absolute path to the desired file. If the file does not exist when the script attempts to read it, an error is printed to the user. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
import os
import sys def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
main()
path = os.path.join(os.getcwd(), filename) try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
except FileNotFoundError as e:
file_data = f.read()
print("Error - file not found")
However, if the user supplies an absolute path, the os.path.join() function will discard the path to the current working directory and use only the absolute path provided. For example, if the current working directory is /home/user/documents, but the user inputs /etc/passwd, os.path.join() will use only /etc/passwd, as it is considered an absolute path. In the above scenario, this would cause the script to access and read the /etc/passwd file. (good code)
Example Language: Python
import os
import sys def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
main()
path = os.path.normpath(f"{os.getcwd()}{os.sep}{filename}") if path.startswith("/home/cwe/documents/"):
try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
except FileNotFoundError as e:
file_data = f.read()
print("Error - file not found")
The constructed path string uses os.sep to add the appropriate separation character for the given operating system (e.g. '\' or '/') and the call to os.path.normpath() removes any additional slashes that may have been entered - this may occur particularly when using a Windows path. The path is checked against an expected directory (/home/cwe/documents); otherwise, an attacker could provide relative path sequences like ".." to cause normpath() to generate paths that are outside the intended directory (CWE-23). By putting the pieces of the path string together in this fashion, the script avoids a call to os.path.join() and any potential issues that might arise if an absolute path is entered. With this version of the script, if the current working directory is /home/cwe/documents, and the user inputs /etc/passwd, the resulting path will be /home/cwe/documents/etc/passwd. The user is therefore contained within the current working directory as intended. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-349: Acceptance of Extraneous Untrusted Data With Trusted Data
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product, when processing trusted data, accepts any untrusted data that is also included with the trusted data, treating the untrusted data as if it were trusted.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-767: Access to Critical Private Variable via Public Method
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
If an attacker modifies the variable to contain unexpected values, this could violate assumptions from other parts of the code. Additionally, if an attacker can read the private variable, it may expose sensitive information or make it easier to launch further attacks.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following example declares a critical variable to be private, and then allows the variable to be modified by public methods. (bad code)
Example Language: C++
private: float price;
public: void changePrice(float newPrice) { price = newPrice; }Example 2 The following example could be used to implement a user forum where a single user (UID) can switch between multiple profiles (PID). (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public class Client {
private int UID; }public int PID; private String userName; public Client(String userName){ PID = getDefaultProfileID(); }UID = mapUserNametoUID( userName ); this.userName = userName; public void setPID(int ID) { UID = ID; }The programmer implemented setPID with the intention of modifying the PID variable, but due to a typo. accidentally specified the critical variable UID instead. If the program allows profile IDs to be between 1 and 10, but a UID of 1 means the user is treated as an admin, then a user could gain administrative privileges as a result of this typo.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
This entry is closely associated with access control for public methods. If the public methods are restricted with proper access controls, then the information in the private variable will not be exposed to unexpected parties. There may be chaining or composite relationships between improper access controls and this weakness.
CWE-489: Active Debug Code
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 Debug code can be used to bypass authentication. For example, suppose an application has a login script that receives a username and a password. Assume also that a third, optional, parameter, called "debug", is interpreted by the script as requesting a switch to debug mode, and that when this parameter is given the username and password are not checked. In such a case, it is very simple to bypass the authentication process if the special behavior of the application regarding the debug parameter is known. In a case where the form is: (bad code)
Example Language: HTML
<FORM ACTION="/authenticate_login.cgi">
<INPUT TYPE=TEXT name=username> </FORM><INPUT TYPE=PASSWORD name=password> <INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT> Then a conforming link will look like: (informative)
http://TARGET/authenticate_login.cgi?username=...&password=...
An attacker can change this to: (attack code)
http://TARGET/authenticate_login.cgi?username=&password=&debug=1
Which will grant the attacker access to the site, bypassing the authentication process.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Other
In J2EE a main method may be a good indicator that debug code has been left in the application, although there may not be any direct security impact.
CWE-464: Addition of Data Structure Sentinel
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe accidental addition of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.
Data-structure sentinels are often used to mark the structure of data. A common example of this is the null character at the end of strings or a special sentinel to mark the end of a linked list. It is dangerous to allow this type of control data to be easily accessible. Therefore, it is important to protect from the addition or modification of sentinels.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following example assigns some character values to a list of characters and prints them each individually, and then as a string. The third character value is intended to be an integer taken from user input and converted to an int. The first print statement will print each character separated by a space. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char *foo;
foo=malloc(sizeof(char)*5); foo[0]='a'; foo[1]='a'; foo[2]=fgetc(stdin); foo[3]='c'; foo[4]='\0'; printf("%c %c %c %c %c \n",foo[0],foo[1],foo[2],foo[3],foo[4]); printf("%s\n",foo); However, if a NULL byte is read from stdin by fgetc, then it will return 0. When foo is printed as a string, the 0 at character foo[2] will act as a NULL terminator, and the second printf() statement will not print foo[3].
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-774: Allocation of File Descriptors or Handles Without Limits or Throttling
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product allocates file descriptors or handles on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on how many descriptors can be allocated, in violation of the intended security policy for that actor.
This can cause the product to consume all available file descriptors or handles, which can prevent other processes from performing critical file processing operations.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-770: Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 This code allocates a socket and forks each time it receives a new connection. (bad code)
Example Language: C
sock=socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
while (1) { newsock=accept(sock, ...); }printf("A connection has been accepted\n"); pid = fork(); The program does not track how many connections have been made, and it does not limit the number of connections. Because forking is a relatively expensive operation, an attacker would be able to cause the system to run out of CPU, processes, or memory by making a large number of connections. Alternatively, an attacker could consume all available connections, preventing others from accessing the system remotely. Example 2 In the following example a server socket connection is used to accept a request to store data on the local file system using a specified filename. The method openSocketConnection establishes a server socket to accept requests from a client. When a client establishes a connection to this service the getNextMessage method is first used to retrieve from the socket the name of the file to store the data, the openFileToWrite method will validate the filename and open a file to write to on the local file system. The getNextMessage is then used within a while loop to continuously read data from the socket and output the data to the file until there is no longer any data from the socket. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int writeDataFromSocketToFile(char *host, int port)
{ char filename[FILENAME_SIZE]; char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; int socket = openSocketConnection(host, port); if (socket < 0) { printf("Unable to open socket connection"); }return(FAIL); if (getNextMessage(socket, filename, FILENAME_SIZE) > 0) { if (openFileToWrite(filename) > 0) {
while (getNextMessage(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE) > 0){
if (!(writeToFile(buffer) > 0)) }break;
closeFile(); closeSocket(socket); This example creates a situation where data can be dumped to a file on the local file system without any limits on the size of the file. This could potentially exhaust file or disk resources and/or limit other clients' ability to access the service. Example 3 In the following example, the processMessage method receives a two dimensional character array containing the message to be processed. The two-dimensional character array contains the length of the message in the first character array and the message body in the second character array. The getMessageLength method retrieves the integer value of the length from the first character array. After validating that the message length is greater than zero, the body character array pointer points to the start of the second character array of the two-dimensional character array and memory is allocated for the new body character array. (bad code)
Example Language: C
/* process message accepts a two-dimensional character array of the form [length][body] containing the message to be processed */ int processMessage(char **message) { char *body;
int length = getMessageLength(message[0]); if (length > 0) { body = &message[1][0]; }processMessageBody(body); return(SUCCESS); else { printf("Unable to process message; invalid message length"); }return(FAIL); This example creates a situation where the length of the body character array can be very large and will consume excessive memory, exhausting system resources. This can be avoided by restricting the length of the second character array with a maximum length check Also, consider changing the type from 'int' to 'unsigned int', so that you are always guaranteed that the number is positive. This might not be possible if the protocol specifically requires allowing negative values, or if you cannot control the return value from getMessageLength(), but it could simplify the check to ensure the input is positive, and eliminate other errors such as signed-to-unsigned conversion errors (CWE-195) that may occur elsewhere in the code. (good code)
Example Language: C
unsigned int length = getMessageLength(message[0]);
if ((length > 0) && (length < MAX_LENGTH)) {...} Example 4 In the following example, a server object creates a server socket and accepts client connections to the socket. For every client connection to the socket a separate thread object is generated using the ClientSocketThread class that handles request made by the client through the socket. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void acceptConnections() {
try {
ServerSocket serverSocket = new ServerSocket(SERVER_PORT);
int counter = 0; boolean hasConnections = true; while (hasConnections) { Socket client = serverSocket.accept(); }Thread t = new Thread(new ClientSocketThread(client)); t.setName(client.getInetAddress().getHostName() + ":" + counter++); t.start(); serverSocket.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} In this example there is no limit to the number of client connections and client threads that are created. Allowing an unlimited number of client connections and threads could potentially overwhelm the system and system resources. The server should limit the number of client connections and the client threads that are created. This can be easily done by creating a thread pool object that limits the number of threads that are generated. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public static final int SERVER_PORT = 4444;
public static final int MAX_CONNECTIONS = 10; ... public void acceptConnections() { try {
ServerSocket serverSocket = new ServerSocket(SERVER_PORT);
int counter = 0; boolean hasConnections = true; while (hasConnections) { hasConnections = checkForMoreConnections(); }Socket client = serverSocket.accept(); Thread t = new Thread(new ClientSocketThread(client)); t.setName(client.getInetAddress().getHostName() + ":" + counter++); ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(MAX_CONNECTIONS); pool.execute(t); serverSocket.close(); } catch (IOException ex) {...} Example 5 An unnamed web site allowed a user to purchase tickets for an event. A menu option allowed the user to purchase up to 10 tickets, but the back end did not restrict the actual number of tickets that could be purchased.
Example 6 Here the problem is that every time a connection is made, more memory is allocated. So if one just opened up more and more connections, eventually the machine would run out of memory. (bad code)
Example Language: C
bar connection() {
foo = malloc(1024); }return foo; endConnection(bar foo) { free(foo); }int main() { while(1) { }foo=connection(); }endConnection(foo) Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This entry is different from uncontrolled resource consumption (CWE-400) in that there are other weaknesses that are related to inability to control resource consumption, such as holding on to a resource too long after use, or not correctly keeping track of active resources so that they can be managed and released when they are finished (CWE-771).
Theoretical
Vulnerability theory is largely about how behaviors and resources interact. "Resource exhaustion" can be regarded as either a consequence or an attack, depending on the perspective. This entry is an attempt to reflect one of the underlying weaknesses that enable these attacks (or consequences) to take place.
CWE-670: Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is navigated.
This weakness captures cases in which a particular code segment is always incorrect with respect to the algorithm that it is implementing. For example, if a C programmer intends to include multiple statements in a single block but does not include the enclosing braces (CWE-483), then the logic is always incorrect. This issue is in contrast to most weaknesses in which the code usually behaves correctly, except when it is externally manipulated in malicious ways.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 This code queries a server and displays its status when a request comes from an authorized IP address. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
$requestingIP = $_SERVER['REMOTE_ADDR'];
if(!in_array($requestingIP,$ipAllowList)){ echo "You are not authorized to view this page"; }http_redirect($errorPageURL); $status = getServerStatus(); echo $status; ... This code redirects unauthorized users, but continues to execute code after calling http_redirect(). This means even unauthorized users may be able to access the contents of the page or perform a DoS attack on the server being queried. Also, note that this code is vulnerable to an IP address spoofing attack (CWE-212). Example 2 In this example, the programmer has indented the statements to call Do_X() and Do_Y(), as if the intention is that these functions are only called when the condition is true. However, because there are no braces to signify the block, Do_Y() will always be executed, even if the condition is false. (bad code)
Example Language: C
if (condition==true)
Do_X();
Do_Y(); This might not be what the programmer intended. When the condition is critical for security, such as in making a security decision or detecting a critical error, this may produce a vulnerability. Example 3 In both of these examples, a message is printed based on the month passed into the function: (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void printMessage(int month){
switch (month) {
case 1: print("January"); case 2: print("February"); case 3: print("March"); case 4: print("April"); case 5: print("May"); case 6: print("June"); case 7: print("July"); case 8: print("August"); case 9: print("September"); case 10: print("October"); case 11: print("November"); case 12: print("December"); println(" is a great month"); (bad code)
Example Language: C
void printMessage(int month){
switch (month) {
case 1: printf("January"); case 2: printf("February"); case 3: printf("March"); case 4: printf("April"); case 5: printff("May"); case 6: printf("June"); case 7: printf("July"); case 8: printf("August"); case 9: printf("September"); case 10: printf("October"); case 11: printf("November"); case 12: printf("December"); printf(" is a great month"); Both examples do not use a break statement after each case, which leads to unintended fall-through behavior. For example, calling "printMessage(10)" will result in the text "OctoberNovemberDecember is a great month" being printed. Example 4 In the excerpt below, an AssertionError (an unchecked exception) is thrown if the user hasn't entered an email address in an HTML form. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String email = request.getParameter("email_address");
assert email != null; Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
This node could possibly be split into lower-level nodes. "Early Return" is for returning control to the caller too soon (e.g., CWE-584). "Excess Return" is when control is returned too far up the call stack (CWE-600, CWE-395). "Improper control limitation" occurs when the product maintains control at a lower level of execution, when control should be returned "further" up the call stack (CWE-455). "Incorrect syntax" covers code that's "just plain wrong" such as CWE-484 and CWE-483.
CWE-582: Array Declared Public, Final, and Static
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product declares an array public, final, and static, which is not sufficient to prevent the array's contents from being modified.
Because arrays are mutable objects, the final constraint requires that the array object itself be assigned only once, but makes no guarantees about the values of the array elements. Since the array is public, a malicious program can change the values stored in the array. As such, in most cases an array declared public, final and static is a bug.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following Java Applet code mistakenly declares an array public, final and static. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public final class urlTool extends Applet {
public final static URL[] urls; }...
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-11: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
ASP .NET applications can be configured to produce debug binaries. These binaries give detailed debugging messages and should not be used in production environments. Debug binaries are meant to be used in a development or testing environment and can pose a security risk if they are deployed to production.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The file web.config contains the debug mode setting. Setting debug to "true" will let the browser display debugging information. (bad code)
Example Language: XML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<configuration> <system.web> </configuration><compilation </system.web>defaultLanguage="c#" debug="true" /> ... Change the debug mode to false when the application is deployed into production.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-12: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Missing Custom Error Page
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterAn ASP .NET application must enable custom error pages in order to prevent attackers from mining information from the framework's built-in responses.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The mode attribute of the <customErrors> tag in the Web.config file defines whether custom or default error pages are used. In the following insecure ASP.NET application setting, custom error message mode is turned off. An ASP.NET error message with detailed stack trace and platform versions will be returned. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
<customErrors mode="Off" />
A more secure setting is to set the custom error message mode for remote users only. No defaultRedirect error page is specified. The local user on the web server will see a detailed stack trace. For remote users, an ASP.NET error message with the server customError configuration setting and the platform version will be returned. (good code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
<customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" />
Another secure option is to set the mode attribute of the <customErrors> tag to use a custom page as follows: (good code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
<customErrors mode="On" defaultRedirect="YourErrorPage.htm" />
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-554: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Not Using Input Validation Framework
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-13: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Password in Configuration File
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterStoring a plaintext password in a configuration file allows anyone who can read the file access to the password-protected resource making them an easy target for attackers.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database, but the pair is stored in plaintext. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
...
<connectionStrings> <add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" /> </connectionStrings>... Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in plaintext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-556: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Use of Identity Impersonation
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterConfiguring an ASP.NET application to run with impersonated credentials may give the application unnecessary privileges.
The use of impersonated credentials allows an ASP.NET application to run with either the privileges of the client on whose behalf it is executing or with arbitrary privileges granted in its configuration.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-481: Assigning instead of Comparing
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe code uses an operator for assignment when the intention was to perform a comparison.
In many languages the compare statement is very close in appearance to the assignment statement and are often confused. This bug is generally the result of a typo and usually causes obvious problems with program execution. If the comparison is in an if statement, the if statement will usually evaluate the value of the right-hand side of the predicate.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following C/C++ and C# examples attempt to validate an int input parameter against the integer value 100. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int isValid(int value) {
if (value=100) { }printf("Value is valid\n"); }return(1); printf("Value is not valid\n"); return(0); (bad code)
Example Language: C#
bool isValid(int value) {
if (value=100) { }Console.WriteLine("Value is valid."); }return true; Console.WriteLine("Value is not valid."); return false; However, the expression to be evaluated in the if statement uses the assignment operator "=" rather than the comparison operator "==". The result of using the assignment operator instead of the comparison operator causes the int variable to be reassigned locally and the expression in the if statement will always evaluate to the value on the right hand side of the expression. This will result in the input value not being properly validated, which can cause unexpected results. Example 2 In this example, we show how assigning instead of comparing can impact code when values are being passed by reference instead of by value. Consider a scenario in which a string is being processed from user input. Assume the string has already been formatted such that different user inputs are concatenated with the colon character. When the processString function is called, the test for the colon character will result in an insertion of the colon character instead, adding new input separators. Since the string was passed by reference, the data sentinels will be inserted in the original string (CWE-464), and further processing of the inputs will be altered, possibly malformed.. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void processString (char *str) {
int i;
for(i=0; i<strlen(str); i++) { if (isalnum(str[i])){ }processChar(str[i]); }else if (str[i] = ':') { movingToNewInput();} }Example 3 The following Java example attempts to perform some processing based on the boolean value of the input parameter. However, the expression to be evaluated in the if statement uses the assignment operator "=" rather than the comparison operator "==". As with the previous examples, the variable will be reassigned locally and the expression in the if statement will evaluate to true and unintended processing may occur. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
public void checkValid(boolean isValid) {
if (isValid = true) { }System.out.println("Performing processing"); }doSomethingImportant(); else { System.out.println("Not Valid, do not perform processing"); }return; While most Java compilers will catch the use of an assignment operator when a comparison operator is required, for boolean variables in Java the use of the assignment operator within an expression is allowed. If possible, try to avoid using comparison operators on boolean variables in java. Instead, let the values of the variables stand for themselves, as in the following code. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public void checkValid(boolean isValid) {
if (isValid) { }System.out.println("Performing processing"); }doSomethingImportant(); else { System.out.println("Not Valid, do not perform processing"); }return; Alternatively, to test for false, just use the boolean NOT operator. (good code)
Example Language: Java
public void checkValid(boolean isValid) {
if (!isValid) { }System.out.println("Not Valid, do not perform processing"); }return; System.out.println("Performing processing"); doSomethingImportant(); Example 4 The following example demonstrates the weakness. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void called(int foo){
if (foo=1) printf("foo\n"); }int main() { called(2); return 0;
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-587: Assignment of a Fixed Address to a Pointer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
Using a fixed address is not portable, because that address will probably not be valid in all environments or platforms.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 This code assumes a particular function will always be found at a particular address. It assigns a pointer to that address and calls the function. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int (*pt2Function) (float, char, char)=0x08040000;
int result2 = (*pt2Function) (12, 'a', 'b'); // Here we can inject code to execute. The same function may not always be found at the same memory address. This could lead to a crash, or an attacker may alter the memory at the expected address, leading to arbitrary code execution.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-563: Assignment to Variable without Use
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
After the assignment, the variable is either assigned another value or goes out of scope. It is likely that the variable is simply vestigial, but it is also possible that the unused variable points out a bug.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following code excerpt assigns to the variable r and then overwrites the value without using it. (bad code)
Example Language: C
r = getName();
r = getNewBuffer(buf);
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-405: Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification)
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary to invest equivalent work or otherwise prove authorization, i.e., the adversary's influence is "asymmetric."
This can lead to poor performance due to "amplification" of resource consumption, typically in a non-linear fashion. This situation is worsened if the product allows malicious users or attackers to consume more resources than their access level permits.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 This code listens on a port for DNS requests and sends the result to the requesting address. (bad code)
Example Language: Python
sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM)
sock.bind( (UDP_IP,UDP_PORT) ) while true: data = sock.recvfrom(1024)
if not data: break
(requestIP, nameToResolve) = parseUDPpacket(data) record = resolveName(nameToResolve) sendResponse(requestIP,record) This code sends a DNS record to a requesting IP address. UDP allows the source IP address to be easily changed ('spoofed'), thus allowing an attacker to redirect responses to a target, which may be then be overwhelmed by the network traffic. Example 2 This function prints the contents of a specified file requested by a user. (bad code)
Example Language: PHP
function printFile($username,$filename){
//read file into string $file = file_get_contents($filename); if ($file && isOwnerOf($username,$filename)){ echo $file; }return true; else{ echo 'You are not authorized to view this file'; }return false; This code first reads a specified file into memory, then prints the file if the user is authorized to see its contents. The read of the file into memory may be resource intensive and is unnecessary if the user is not allowed to see the file anyway. Example 3 The DTD and the very brief XML below illustrate what is meant by an XML bomb. The ZERO entity contains one character, the letter A. The choice of entity name ZERO is being used to indicate length equivalent to that exponent on two, that is, the length of ZERO is 2^0. Similarly, ONE refers to ZERO twice, therefore the XML parser will expand ONE to a length of 2, or 2^1. Ultimately, we reach entity THIRTYTWO, which will expand to 2^32 characters in length, or 4 GB, probably consuming far more data than expected. (attack code)
Example Language: XML
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE MaliciousDTD [ <!ENTITY ZERO "A"> <!ENTITY ONE "&ZERO;&ZERO;"> <!ENTITY TWO "&ONE;&ONE;"> ... <!ENTITY THIRTYTWO "&THIRTYONE;&THIRTYONE;"> ]> <data>&THIRTYTWO;</data> Example 4 This example attempts to check if an input string is a "sentence" [REF-1164]. (bad code)
Example Language: JavaScript
var test_string = "Bad characters: $@#";
var bad_pattern = /^(\w+\s?)*$/i; var result = test_string.search(bad_pattern); The regular expression has a vulnerable backtracking clause inside (\w+\s?)*$ which can be triggered to cause a Denial of Service by processing particular phrases. To fix the backtracking problem, backtracking is removed with the ?= portion of the expression which changes it to a lookahead and the \2 which prevents the backtracking. The modified example is: (good code)
Example Language: JavaScript
var test_string = "Bad characters: $@#";
var good_pattern = /^((?=(\w+))\2\s?)*$/i; var result = test_string.search(good_pattern); Note that [REF-1164] has a more thorough (and lengthy) explanation of everything going on within the RegEx. Example 5 An adversary can cause significant resource consumption on a server by filtering the cryptographic algorithms offered by the client to the ones that are the most resource-intensive on the server side. After discovering which cryptographic algorithms are supported by the server, a malicious client can send the initial cryptographic handshake messages that contains only the resource-intensive algorithms. For some cryptographic protocols, these messages can be completely prefabricated, as the resource-intensive part of the handshake happens on the server-side first (such as TLS), rather than on the client side. In the case of cryptographic protocols where the resource-intensive part should happen on the client-side first (such as SSH), a malicious client can send a forged/precalculated computation result, which seems correct to the server, so the resource-intensive part of the handshake is going to happen on the server side. A malicious client is required to send only the initial messages of a cryptographic handshake to initiate the resource-consuming part of the cryptographic handshake. These messages are usually small, and generating them requires minimal computational effort, enabling a denial-of-service attack. An additional risk is the fact that higher key size increases the effectiveness of the attack. Cryptographic protocols where the clients have influence over the size of the used key (such as TLS 1.3 or SSH) are most at risk, as the client can enforce the highest key size supported by the server. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-588: Attempt to Access Child of a Non-structure Pointer
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterCasting a non-structure type to a structure type and accessing a field can lead to memory access errors or data corruption.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following example demonstrates the weakness. (bad code)
Example Language: C
struct foo
{ int i; }... int main(int argc, char **argv) { *foo = (struct foo *)main; }foo->i = 2; return foo->i; Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-289: Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
Overlaps equivalent encodings, canonicalization, authorization, multiple trailing slash, trailing space, mixed case, and other equivalence issues.
Theoretical
Alternate names are useful in data driven manipulation attacks, not just for authentication.
CWE-302: Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe authentication scheme or implementation uses key data elements that are assumed to be immutable, but can be controlled or modified by the attacker.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 In the following example, an "authenticated" cookie is used to determine whether or not a user should be granted access to a system. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
boolean authenticated = new Boolean(getCookieValue("authenticated")).booleanValue();
if (authenticated) { ... }Modifying the value of a cookie on the client-side is trivial, but many developers assume that cookies are essentially immutable. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-294: Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
Capture-replay attacks are common and can be difficult to defeat without cryptography. They are a subset of network injection attacks that rely on observing previously-sent valid commands, then changing them slightly if necessary and resending the same commands to the server.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-305: Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe authentication algorithm is sound, but the implemented mechanism can be bypassed as the result of a separate weakness that is primary to the authentication error.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThis attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following code authenticates users. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
String sourceIP = request.getRemoteAddr();
if (sourceIP != null && sourceIP.equals(APPROVED_IP)) { authenticated = true; }The authentication mechanism implemented relies on an IP address for source validation. If an attacker is able to spoof the IP, they may be able to bypass the authentication mechanism. Example 2 Both of these examples check if a request is from a trusted address before responding to the request. (bad code)
Example Language: C
sd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
serv.sin_family = AF_INET; serv.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY); servr.sin_port = htons(1008); bind(sd, (struct sockaddr *) & serv, sizeof(serv)); while (1) { memset(msg, 0x0, MAX_MSG); }clilen = sizeof(cli); if (inet_ntoa(cli.sin_addr)==getTrustedAddress()) { n = recvfrom(sd, msg, MAX_MSG, 0, (struct sockaddr *) & cli, &clilen); }(bad code)
Example Language: Java
while(true) {
DatagramPacket rp=new DatagramPacket(rData,rData.length);
outSock.receive(rp); String in = new String(p.getData(),0, rp.getLength()); InetAddress clientIPAddress = rp.getAddress(); int port = rp.getPort(); if (isTrustedAddress(clientIPAddress) & secretKey.equals(in)) { out = secret.getBytes(); }DatagramPacket sp =new DatagramPacket(out,out.length, IPAddress, port); outSock.send(sp); The code only verifies the address as stored in the request packet. An attacker can spoof this address, thus impersonating a trusted client. Example 3 The following code samples use a DNS lookup in order to decide whether or not an inbound request is from a trusted host. If an attacker can poison the DNS cache, they can gain trusted status. (bad code)
Example Language: C
struct hostent *hp;struct in_addr myaddr;
char* tHost = "trustme.example.com"; myaddr.s_addr=inet_addr(ip_addr_string); hp = gethostbyaddr((char *) &myaddr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET); if (hp && !strncmp(hp->h_name, tHost, sizeof(tHost))) { trusted = true; } else {trusted = false; }(bad code)
Example Language: Java
String ip = request.getRemoteAddr();
InetAddress addr = InetAddress.getByName(ip); if (addr.getCanonicalHostName().endsWith("trustme.com")) { trusted = true; }(bad code)
Example Language: C#
IPAddress hostIPAddress = IPAddress.Parse(RemoteIpAddress);
IPHostEntry hostInfo = Dns.GetHostByAddress(hostIPAddress); if (hostInfo.HostName.EndsWith("trustme.com")) { trusted = true; }IP addresses are more reliable than DNS names, but they can also be spoofed. Attackers can easily forge the source IP address of the packets they send, but response packets will return to the forged IP address. To see the response packets, the attacker has to sniff the traffic between the victim machine and the forged IP address. In order to accomplish the required sniffing, attackers typically attempt to locate themselves on the same subnet as the victim machine. Attackers may be able to circumvent this requirement by using source routing, but source routing is disabled across much of the Internet today. In summary, IP address verification can be a useful part of an authentication scheme, but it should not be the single factor required for authentication. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-288: Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1
Register SECURE_ME is located at address 0xF00. A mirror of this register called COPY_OF_SECURE_ME is at location 0x800F00. The register SECURE_ME is protected from malicious agents and only allows access to select, while COPY_OF_SECURE_ME is not. Access control is implemented using an allowlist (as indicated by acl_oh_allowlist). The identity of the initiator of the transaction is indicated by the one hot input, incoming_id. This is checked against the acl_oh_allowlist (which contains a list of initiators that are allowed to access the asset). Though this example is shown in Verilog, it will apply to VHDL as well. (informative)
Example Language: Verilog
module foo_bar(data_out, data_in, incoming_id, address, clk, rst_n);
output [31:0] data_out; input [31:0] data_in, incoming_id, address; input clk, rst_n; wire write_auth, addr_auth; reg [31:0] data_out, acl_oh_allowlist, q; assign write_auth = | (incoming_id & acl_oh_allowlist) ? 1 : 0; always @*
acl_oh_allowlist <= 32'h8312;
assign addr_auth = (address == 32'hF00) ? 1: 0;always @ (posedge clk or negedge rst_n)
if (!rst_n)
endmodule
begin
else
q <= 32'h0;
enddata_out <= 32'h0;
begin
end
q <= (addr_auth & write_auth) ? data_in: q;
enddata_out <= q; (bad code)
Example Language: Verilog
assign addr_auth = (address == 32'hF00) ? 1: 0;
The bugged line of code is repeated in the Bad example above. Weakness arises from the fact that the SECURE_ME register can be modified by writing to the shadow register COPY_OF_SECURE_ME, the address of COPY_OF_SECURE_ME should also be included in the check. That buggy line of code should instead be replaced as shown in the Good Code Snippet below. (good code)
Example Language: Verilog
assign addr_auth = (address == 32'hF00 || address == 32'h800F00) ? 1: 0;
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-593: Authentication Bypass: OpenSSL CTX Object Modified after SSL Objects are Created
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
If the program modifies the SSL_CTX object after creating SSL objects from it, there is the possibility that older SSL objects created from the original context could all be affected by that change.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following example demonstrates the weakness. (bad code)
Example Language: C
#define CERT "secret.pem"
#define CERT2 "secret2.pem" int main(){ SSL_CTX *ctx;
SSL *ssl; init_OpenSSL(); seed_prng(); ctx = SSL_CTX_new(SSLv23_method()); if (SSL_CTX_use_certificate_chain_file(ctx, CERT) != 1) int_error("Error loading certificate from file");
if (SSL_CTX_use_PrivateKey_file(ctx, CERT, SSL_FILETYPE_PEM) != 1) int_error("Error loading private key from file");
if (!(ssl = SSL_new(ctx))) int_error("Error creating an SSL context");
if ( SSL_CTX_set_default_passwd_cb(ctx, "new default password" != 1)) int_error("Doing something which is dangerous to do anyways");
if (!(ssl2 = SSL_new(ctx))) int_error("Error creating an SSL context");
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Retrieval of a user record occurs in the system based on some key value that is under user control. The key would typically identify a user-related record stored in the system and would be used to lookup that record for presentation to the user. It is likely that an attacker would have to be an authenticated user in the system. However, the authorization process would not properly check the data access operation to ensure that the authenticated user performing the operation has sufficient entitlements to perform the requested data access, hence bypassing any other authorization checks present in the system. For example, attackers can look at places where user specific data is retrieved (e.g. search screens) and determine whether the key for the item being looked up is controllable externally. The key may be a hidden field in the HTML form field, might be passed as a URL parameter or as an unencrypted cookie variable, then in each of these cases it will be possible to tamper with the key value. One manifestation of this weakness is when a system uses sequential or otherwise easily-guessable session IDs that would allow one user to easily switch to another user's session and read/modify their data.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following code uses a parameterized statement, which escapes metacharacters and prevents SQL injection vulnerabilities, to construct and execute a SQL query that searches for an invoice matching the specified identifier [1]. The identifier is selected from a list of all invoices associated with the current authenticated user. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
...
conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString); conn.Open(); int16 id = System.Convert.ToInt16(invoiceID.Text); SqlCommand query = new SqlCommand( "SELECT * FROM invoices WHERE id = @id", conn); query.Parameters.AddWithValue("@id", id); SqlDataReader objReader = objCommand.ExecuteReader(); ... The problem is that the developer has not considered all of the possible values of id. Although the interface generates a list of invoice identifiers that belong to the current user, an attacker can bypass this interface to request any desired invoice. Because the code in this example does not check to ensure that the user has permission to access the requested invoice, it will display any invoice, even if it does not belong to the current user. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-566: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses a database table that includes records that should not be accessible to an actor, but it executes a SQL statement with a primary key that can be controlled by that actor.
When a user can set a primary key to any value, then the user can modify the key to point to unauthorized records. Database access control errors occur when:
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following code uses a parameterized statement, which escapes metacharacters and prevents SQL injection vulnerabilities, to construct and execute a SQL query that searches for an invoice matching the specified identifier [1]. The identifier is selected from a list of all invoices associated with the current authenticated user. (bad code)
Example Language: C#
...
conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString); conn.Open(); int16 id = System.Convert.ToInt16(invoiceID.Text); SqlCommand query = new SqlCommand( "SELECT * FROM invoices WHERE id = @id", conn); query.Parameters.AddWithValue("@id", id); SqlDataReader objReader = objCommand.ExecuteReader(); ... The problem is that the developer has not considered all of the possible values of id. Although the interface generates a list of invoice identifiers that belong to the current user, an attacker can bypass this interface to request any desired invoice. Because the code in this example does not check to ensure that the user has permission to access the requested invoice, it will display any invoice, even if it does not belong to the current user.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-439: Behavioral Change in New Version or Environment
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterA's behavior or functionality changes with a new version of A, or a new environment, which is not known (or manageable) by B.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-120: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305)
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (View-700)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following code asks the user to enter their last name and then attempts to store the value entered in the last_name array. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char last_name[20];
printf ("Enter your last name: "); scanf ("%s", last_name); The problem with the code above is that it does not restrict or limit the size of the name entered by the user. If the user enters "Very_very_long_last_name" which is 24 characters long, then a buffer overflow will occur since the array can only hold 20 characters total. Example 2 The following code attempts to create a local copy of a buffer to perform some manipulations to the data. (bad code)
Example Language: C
void manipulate_string(char * string){
char buf[24]; }strcpy(buf, string); ... However, the programmer does not ensure that the size of the data pointed to by string will fit in the local buffer and copies the data with the potentially dangerous strcpy() function. This may result in a buffer overflow condition if an attacker can influence the contents of the string parameter. Example 3 The code below calls the gets() function to read in data from the command line. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char buf[24]; }printf("Please enter your name and press <Enter>\n"); gets(buf); ... However, gets() is inherently unsafe, because it copies all input from STDIN to the buffer without checking size. This allows the user to provide a string that is larger than the buffer size, resulting in an overflow condition. Example 4 In the following example, a server accepts connections from a client and processes the client request. After accepting a client connection, the program will obtain client information using the gethostbyaddr method, copy the hostname of the client that connected to a local variable and output the hostname of the client to a log file. (bad code)
Example Language: C
...
struct hostent *clienthp;
char hostname[MAX_LEN]; // create server socket, bind to server address and listen on socket ... // accept client connections and process requests int count = 0; for (count = 0; count < MAX_CONNECTIONS; count++) { int clientlen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); int clientsocket = accept(serversocket, (struct sockaddr *)&clientaddr, &clientlen); if (clientsocket >= 0) { clienthp = gethostbyaddr((char*) &clientaddr.sin_addr.s_addr, sizeof(clientaddr.sin_addr.s_addr), AF_INET);
strcpy(hostname, clienthp->h_name); logOutput("Accepted client connection from host ", hostname); // process client request ... close(clientsocket); close(serversocket); ... However, the hostname of the client that connected may be longer than the allocated size for the local hostname variable. This will result in a buffer overflow when copying the client hostname to the local variable using the strcpy method. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
At the code level, stack-based and heap-based overflows do not differ significantly, so there usually is not a need to distinguish them. From the attacker perspective, they can be quite different, since different techniques are required to exploit them.
Terminology
There is significant inconsistency
regarding the "buffer overflow" term, which can have
multiple interpretations and uses. Many people mean
"writing past the end of a buffer." Others mean "writing
past the end of a buffer, or before the beginning of a
buffer." Still others might include "read" in the term.
Other
A buffer overflow condition exists when a product attempts to put more data in a buffer than it can hold, or when it attempts to put data in a memory area outside of the boundaries of a buffer. The simplest type of error, and the most common cause of buffer overflows, is the "classic" case in which the product copies the buffer without restricting how much data is copied. Other variants exist, but the existence of a classic overflow strongly suggests that the programmer is not considering even the most basic of security protections.
CWE-126: Buffer Over-read
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 In the following C/C++ example the method processMessageFromSocket() will get a message from a socket, placed into a buffer, and will parse the contents of the buffer into a structure that contains the message length and the message body. A for loop is used to copy the message body into a local character string which will be passed to another method for processing. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int processMessageFromSocket(int socket) {
int success;
char buffer[BUFFER_SIZE]; char message[MESSAGE_SIZE]; // get message from socket and store into buffer //Ignoring possibliity that buffer > BUFFER_SIZE if (getMessage(socket, buffer, BUFFER_SIZE) > 0) { // place contents of the buffer into message structure ExMessage *msg = recastBuffer(buffer); // copy message body into string for processing int index; for (index = 0; index < msg->msgLength; index++) { message[index] = msg->msgBody[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // process message success = processMessage(message); return success; However, the message length variable (msgLength) from the structure is used as the condition for ending the for loop without validating that msgLength accurately reflects the actual length of the message body (CWE-606). If msgLength indicates a length that is longer than the size of a message body (CWE-130), then this can result in a buffer over-read by reading past the end of the buffer (CWE-126). Example 2 The following C/C++ example demonstrates a buffer over-read due to a missing NULL terminator. The main method of a pattern matching utility that looks for a specific pattern within a specific file uses the string strncopy() method to copy the command line user input file name and pattern to the Filename and Pattern character arrays respectively. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{ char Filename[256]; }char Pattern[32]; /* Validate number of parameters and ensure valid content */ ... /* copy filename parameter to variable, may cause off-by-one overflow */ strncpy(Filename, argv[1], sizeof(Filename)); /* copy pattern parameter to variable, may cause off-by-one overflow */ strncpy(Pattern, argv[2], sizeof(Pattern)); printf("Searching file: %s for the pattern: %s\n", Filename, Pattern); Scan_File(Filename, Pattern); However, the code do not take into account that strncpy() will not add a NULL terminator when the source buffer is equal in length of longer than that provide size attribute. Therefore if a user enters a filename or pattern that are the same size as (or larger than) their respective character arrays, a NULL terminator will not be added (CWE-170) which leads to the printf() read beyond the expected end of the Filename and Pattern buffers. To fix this problem, be sure to subtract 1 from the sizeof() call to allow room for the null byte to be added. (good code)
Example Language: C
/* copy filename parameter to variable, no off-by-one overflow */
Pattern[31]='\0';strncpy(Filename, argv[2], sizeof(Filename)-1); Filename[255]='\0'; /* copy pattern parameter to variable, no off-by-one overflow */ strncpy(Pattern, argv[3], sizeof(Pattern)-1); Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
These problems may be resultant from missing sentinel values (CWE-463) or trusting a user-influenced input length variable.
Other
A buffer over-read typically occurs when the pointer or its index is incremented to a position past the end of the buffer or when pointer arithmetic results in a position after the valid memory location.
CWE-127: Buffer Under-read
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations prior to the targeted buffer.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 In the following code, the method retrieves a value from an array at a specific array index location that is given as an input parameter to the method (bad code)
Example Language: C
int getValueFromArray(int *array, int len, int index) {
int value; // check that the array index is less than the maximum // length of the array if (index < len) { // get the value at the specified index of the array value = array[index]; // if array index is invalid then output error message // and return value indicating error else { printf("Value is: %d\n", array[index]); }value = -1; return value; However, this method only verifies that the given array index is less than the maximum length of the array but does not check for the minimum value (CWE-839). This will allow a negative value to be accepted as the input array index, which will result in reading data before the beginning of the buffer (CWE-127) and may allow access to sensitive memory. The input array index should be checked to verify that is within the maximum and minimum range required for the array (CWE-129). In this example the if statement should be modified to include a minimum range check, as shown below. (good code)
Example Language: C
... // check that the array index is within the correct // range of values for the array if (index >= 0 && index < len) { ... Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-124: Buffer Underwrite ('Buffer Underflow')
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 In the following C/C++ example, a utility function is used to trim trailing whitespace from a character string. The function copies the input string to a local character string and uses a while statement to remove the trailing whitespace by moving backward through the string and overwriting whitespace with a NUL character. (bad code)
Example Language: C
char* trimTrailingWhitespace(char *strMessage, int length) {
char *retMessage;
char *message = malloc(sizeof(char)*(length+1)); // copy input string to a temporary string char message[length+1]; int index; for (index = 0; index < length; index++) { message[index] = strMessage[index]; }message[index] = '\0'; // trim trailing whitespace int len = index-1; while (isspace(message[len])) { message[len] = '\0'; }len--; // return string without trailing whitespace retMessage = message; return retMessage; However, this function can cause a buffer underwrite if the input character string contains all whitespace. On some systems the while statement will move backwards past the beginning of a character string and will call the isspace() function on an address outside of the bounds of the local buffer. Example 2 The following is an example of code that may result in a buffer underwrite. This code is attempting to replace the substring "Replace Me" in destBuf with the string stored in srcBuf. It does so by using the function strstr(), which returns a pointer to the found substring in destBuf. Using pointer arithmetic, the starting index of the substring is found. (bad code)
Example Language: C
int main() {
... }
char *result = strstr(destBuf, "Replace Me"); int idx = result - destBuf; strcpy(&destBuf[idx], srcBuf); ... In the case where the substring is not found in destBuf, strstr() will return NULL, causing the pointer arithmetic to be undefined, potentially setting the value of idx to a negative number. If idx is negative, this will result in a buffer underwrite of destBuf. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Relationship
This could be resultant from several errors, including a bad offset or an array index that decrements before the beginning of the buffer (see CWE-129).
CWE-589: Call to Non-ubiquitous API
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product uses an API function that does not exist on all versions of the target platform. This could cause portability problems or inconsistencies that allow denial of service or other consequences.
Some functions that offer security features supported by the OS are not available on all versions of the OS in common use. Likewise, functions are often deprecated or made obsolete for security reasons and should not be used.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-572: Call to Thread run() instead of start()
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product calls a thread's run() method instead of calling start(), which causes the code to run in the thread of the caller instead of the callee.
In most cases a direct call to a Thread object's run() method is a bug. The programmer intended to begin a new thread of control, but accidentally called run() instead of start(), so the run() method will execute in the caller's thread of control.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following excerpt from a Java program mistakenly calls run() instead of start(). (bad code)
Example Language: Java
Thread thr = new Thread() {
public void run() { };... }thr.run();
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
CWE-300: Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom FilterThe product does not adequately verify the identity of actors at both ends of a communication channel, or does not adequately ensure the integrity of the channel, in a way that allows the channel to be accessed or influenced by an actor that is not an endpoint.
In order to establish secure communication between two parties, it is often important to adequately verify the identity of entities at each end of the communication channel. Inadequate or inconsistent verification may result in insufficient or incorrect identification of either communicating entity. This can have negative consequences such as misplaced trust in the entity at the other end of the channel. An attacker can leverage this by interposing between the communicating entities and masquerading as the original entity. In the absence of sufficient verification of identity, such an attacker can eavesdrop and potentially modify the communication between the original entities.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 In the Java snippet below, data is sent over an unencrypted channel to a remote server. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
Socket sock;
PrintWriter out; try { sock = new Socket(REMOTE_HOST, REMOTE_PORT);
out = new PrintWriter(echoSocket.getOutputStream(), true); // Write data to remote host via socket output stream. ... By eavesdropping on the communication channel or posing as the endpoint, an attacker would be able to read all of the transmitted data. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Maintenance
The summary identifies multiple distinct possibilities, suggesting that this is a category that must be broken into more specific weaknesses.
CWE-313: Cleartext Storage in a File or on Disk
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
The sensitive information could be read by attackers with access to the file, or with physical or administrator access to the raw disk. Even if the information is encoded in a way that is not human-readable, certain techniques could determine which encoding is being used, then decode the information.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Example 1 The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but they are stored in cleartext. This Java example shows a properties file with a cleartext username / password pair. (bad code)
Example Language: Java
# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file ... webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername webapp.ldap.password=secretPassword ... The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database but the pair is stored in cleartext. (bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET
...
<connectionStrings> <add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" /> </connectionStrings>... Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in cleartext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information. Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).
CWE-314: Cleartext Storage in the Registry
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter
Attackers can read the information by accessing the registry key. Even if the information is encoded in a way that is not human-readable, certain techniques could determine which encoding is being used, then decode the information.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Terminology
Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).
CWE-312: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers.
For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts.
For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers.
For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry.
For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×
Edit Custom Filter This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
|

