Kingdom: Input Validation and Representation

Input validation and representation problems ares caused by metacharacters, alternate encodings and numeric representations. Security problems result from trusting input. The issues include: "Buffer Overflows," "Cross-Site Scripting" attacks, "SQL Injection," and many others.

Integer Overflow

Abstract
Not accounting for integer overflow can result in logic errors or buffer overflow.
Explanation
Integer overflow errors occur when a program fails to account for the fact that an arithmetic operation can result in a quantity either greater than a data type's maximum value or less than its minimum value. These errors often cause problems in memory allocation functions, where user input intersects with an implicit conversion between signed and unsigned values. If an attacker can cause the program to under-allocate memory or interpret a signed value as an unsigned value in a memory operation, the program might be vulnerable to a buffer overflow.

Example 1: The following code excerpt from OpenSSH 3.3 demonstrates a classic case of integer overflow:


nresp = packet_get_int();
if (nresp > 0) {
response = xmalloc(nresp*sizeof(char*));
for (i = 0; i < nresp; i++)
response[i] = packet_get_string(NULL);
}


If nresp has the value 1073741824 and sizeof(char*) has its typical value of 4, then the result of the operation nresp*sizeof(char*) overflows, and the argument to xmalloc() will be 0. Most malloc() implementations will allow for the allocation of a 0-byte buffer, causing the subsequent loop iterations to overflow the heap buffer response.

Example 2: This example processes user input comprised of a series of variable-length structures. The first 2 bytes of input dictate the size of the structure to be processed.


char* processNext(char* strm) {
char buf[512];
short len = *(short*) strm;
strm += sizeof(len);
if (len <= 512) {
memcpy(buf, strm, len);
process(buf);
return strm + len;
} else {
return -1;
}
}


The programmer has set an upper bound on the structure size: if it is larger than 512, the input will not be processed. The problem is that len is a signed integer, so the check against the maximum structure length is done with signed integers, but len is converted to an unsigned integer for the call to memcpy(). If len is negative, then it will appear that the structure has an appropriate size (the if branch will be taken), but the amount of memory copied by memcpy() will be quite large, and the attacker will be able to overflow the stack with data in strm.
References
[1] blexim Basic Integer Overflows Phrack
[2] D. Plakosh Coding Flaws That Lead to Security Failures 2nd Annual Hampton University Information Assurance Symposium
[3] Les Hatton Safer C: Developing Software for High-integrity and Safety-critical Systems McGraw-Hill Companies
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 190, CWE ID 191
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [8] CWE ID 190
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [11] CWE ID 190
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [12] CWE ID 190
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [13] CWE ID 190
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [14] CWE ID 190
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [23] CWE ID 190
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 21.18
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 5-19-1
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.3 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 682
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-101
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Integer Overflows (WASC-03)
desc.dataflow.cpp.integer_overflow
Abstract
Not accounting for integer overflow can result in logic errors or buffer overflow.
Explanation
Integer overflow errors occur when a program fails to account for the fact that an arithmetic operation can result in a quantity either greater than a data type's maximum value or less than its minimum value. These errors often cause problems in memory allocation functions, where user input intersects with an implicit conversion between signed and unsigned values. If an attacker can cause the program to under-allocate memory or interpret a signed value as an unsigned value in a memory operation, the program might be vulnerable to a buffer overflow.

Example 1: The following code excerpt demonstrates a classic case of integer overflow:


77 accept-in PIC 9(10).
77 num PIC X(4) COMP-5. *> native 32-bit unsigned integer
77 mem-size PIC X(4) COMP-5.
...
ACCEPT accept-in
MOVE accept-in TO num
MULTIPLY 4 BY num GIVING mem-size

CALL "CBL_ALLOC_MEM" USING
mem-pointer
BY VALUE mem-size
BY VALUE 0
RETURNING status-code
END-CALL


If num has the value 1073741824, then the result of the operation MULTIPLY 4 BY num overflows, and the argument mem-size to malloc() will be 0. Most malloc() implementations will allow for the allocation of a 0-byte buffer, causing the heap buffer mem-pointer to overflow in subsequent statements.
References
[1] blexim Basic Integer Overflows Phrack
[2] D. Plakosh Coding Flaws That Lead to Security Failures 2nd Annual Hampton University Information Assurance Symposium
[3] Les Hatton Safer C: Developing Software for High-integrity and Safety-critical Systems McGraw-Hill Companies
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 190, CWE ID 191
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [8] CWE ID 190
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [11] CWE ID 190
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [12] CWE ID 190
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [13] CWE ID 190
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [14] CWE ID 190
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [23] CWE ID 190
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 21.18
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 5-19-1
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.3 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.5
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 682
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-101
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Integer Overflows (WASC-03)
desc.dataflow.cobol.integer_overflow
Abstract
A function incorrectly handles an integer calculation that results in overflow/underflow.
Explanation
An integer overflow/underflow occurs when a calculation or an arithmetic operation results in a value that is over/under the maximum/minimum value of the integer type, causing the value to loop back to the lower/upper limit and continuing from there. The resulting value of an arithmetic operation is effectively the modulus of the integer range from the upper/lower boundaries.

For example, if a number is stored in a uint256 type, it means it is stored as a 256 bits unsigned number that ranges from 0 to 2^256-1. If an arithmetic operation results in a number that is larger than the upper limit, then an overflow occurs and the remainder is added from the starting value (0). If an arithmetic operation causes the number to go below than the lower limit, then an underflow occurs and the remainder is subtracted from the largest value (2^256-1).

Example 1: The following public function updates a uint256 mapping using an arithmetic operation that can lead to integer overflow/underflow and affect unintended indexes in the map.


contract overflow {
mapping(uint256 => uint256) map;

function init(uint256 k, uint256 v) public {
map[k] -= v;
}
}
References
[1] Enterprise Ethereum Alliance No Overflow/Underflow
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 190, CWE ID 191
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [8] CWE ID 190
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [11] CWE ID 190
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [12] CWE ID 190
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [13] CWE ID 190
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [14] CWE ID 190
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [23] CWE ID 190
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754, CCI-002824
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14, Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 21.18
[13] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1, Rule 5-19-1
[14] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1), SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[16] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation, SI-16 Memory Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.4.3 Memory/String/Unmanaged Code Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1, Requirement 6.5.5
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 682
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 190
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3550 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-101
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Integer Overflows (WASC-03)
desc.structural.solidity.swc101