Reino: Code Quality

Una mala calidad del código lleva a un comportamiento no predecible. Desde la perspectiva de un usuario, muchas veces también supone una usabilidad limitada. Pero para un atacante es una oportunidad para atacar al sistema de formas insospechadas.

93 elementos encontrados
Debilidades

Poor Style: Empty Synchronized Block

Abstract
Este bloque sincronizado no contiene instrucciones; así pues, no es probable que la sincronización consiga el efecto previsto.
Explanation
La sincronización en Java puede ser complicada. Un bloque vacío sincronizado es con frecuencia una señal de que un programador está luchando con la sincronización, pero todavía no ha conseguido el resultado previsto.

Ejemplo:

synchronized(this) { }
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 585
desc.structural.java.poor_style_empty_synchronized_block

Poor Style: Identifier Contains Dollar Symbol ($)

Abstract
No se recomienda el uso del signo de dólar ($) como parte de un identificador.
Explanation
La sección 3.8 de la especificación de lenguaje Java reserva el signo de dólar ($) para identificadores que se usan solo en código fuente generado mecánicamente.

Ejemplo:

int un$afe;
References
[1] J. Gosling, B. Joy, G. Steele, G. Bracha The Java Language Specification, Second Edition Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
desc.structural.java.poor_style_identifier_contains_dollar_symbol

Poor Style: Redundant Initialization

Abstract
El valor de la variable se asigna, pero no se utiliza nunca, convirtiéndolo así en un almacenamiento fallido.
Explanation
Este valor inicial de la variable no se utiliza. Tras la inicialización, a la variable se le asigna otro valor o esta sale del ámbito.

Ejemplo: la siguiente cita de código se asigna a la variable r y, a continuación, sobrescribe el valor sin usarlo.


  int r = getNum();
  r = getNewNum(buf);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
desc.structural.cpp.poor_style_redundant_initialization
Abstract
El valor de la variable se asigna, pero no se utiliza nunca, convirtiéndolo así en un almacenamiento fallido.
Explanation
Este valor inicial de la variable no se utiliza. Tras la inicialización, a la variable se le asigna otro valor o esta sale del ámbito.

Ejemplo: la siguiente cita de código se asigna a la variable r y, a continuación, sobrescribe el valor sin usarlo.


  int r = getNum();
  r = getNewNum(buf);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 398
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
desc.structural.java.poor_style_redundant_initialization

Poor Style: Value Never Read

Abstract
El valor de la variable se asigna, pero no se utiliza nunca, convirtiéndolo así en un almacenamiento fallido.
Explanation
Este valor de la variable no se utiliza. Tras la asignación, a la variable se le asigna otro valor o se sale del ámbito.

Ejemplo: la siguiente cita de código se asigna a la variable r y, a continuación, sobrescribe el valor sin usarlo.


  r = getName();
  r = getNewBuffer(buf);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 563
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
desc.structural.cpp.poor_style_value_never_read
Abstract
El valor de la variable se asigna, pero no se utiliza nunca, convirtiéndolo así en un almacenamiento fallido.
Explanation
Este valor de la variable no se utiliza. Tras la asignación, a la variable se le asigna otro valor o se sale del ámbito.

Ejemplo: la siguiente cita de código se asigna a la variable r y, a continuación, sobrescribe el valor sin usarlo.


  r = getName();
  r = getNewBuffer(buf);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 563
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
desc.structural.java.poor_style_value_never_read

Poor Style: Variable Never Used

Abstract
Esta variable no se utiliza nunca.
Explanation
Esta variable no se utiliza nunca. Es probable que la variable sea simplemente residual, pero también es posible que la variable sin utilizar muestre un error.

Ejemplo: En el código siguiente, un error de copiar y pegar ha provocado que se utilice dos veces un iterador de bucle (i). La variable j no se utiliza nunca.


  int i,j;

  for (i=0; i < outer; i++) {
    for (i=0; i < inner; i++) {
      ...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 563
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-3
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-131
desc.structural.cpp.poor_style_variable_never_used
Abstract
El contrato define una variable, pero nunca la usa.
Explanation
Solidity permite declarar variables y nunca utilizarlas y, aunque la mayoría de las veces esto no apunta directamente a una vulnerabilidad de seguridad, es una mala práctica. Puede provocar ruido y consumo innecesario de gas debido al aumento de ciclos de cálculo necesarios.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código declara la variable var1 de tipo A, pero nunca la usa.


contract Base {
    struct A { uint a; }
}

contract DerivedA is Base {
    A var1 = A(1);
    int internal j = 500;

    function call(int a) public {
        assign1(a);
    }

    function assign3(A memory x) public returns (uint) {
        return g[1] + x.a + uint(j);
    }
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 563
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-3
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-131
desc.structural.solidity.swc131

Portability Flaw

Abstract
Las funciones con implementaciones incoherentes en varios sistemas operativos y versiones de los mismos pueden provocar problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
El comportamiento de las funciones de esta categoría varía en función del sistema operativo y, a veces, entre versiones de los mismos. Entre las diferencias de implementación, se incluyen:

- Ligeras diferencias en la forma en que se interpretan los comandos, lo que da lugar a resultados incoherentes.

- Algunas implementaciones de la función conllevan considerables riesgos de seguridad.

- Es posible que la función no se defina en todas las plataformas.
desc.semantic.cpp.portability_flaw

Portability Flaw: File Separator

Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
var file:File = new File(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.actionscript.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
FileStream f = File.Create(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.dotnet.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
File file = new File(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
os.open(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.python.portability_flaw_file_separator