529 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
The program performs audio recording operations.
Explanation
Audio recording operations must not be performed without cause or consideration. Malicious software exploits these APIs to steal money and data from unwary users.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[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 250
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[11] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[32] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_android_recording
Abstract
The applications declares the use of a permission that controls access to the device's connected body or environmental sensors.
Explanation
This permission has a "dangerous" protection level. Permissions designated as dangerous imply an increased risk to user data privacy or device operation. In this case, access to body sensors can pose a danger to user privacy and personal safety. Applications that require access to body sensors must manage it with the utmost caution.

Example 1: The <uses-permission .../> element of AndroidManifest.xml declares usage of the BODY_SENSORS permission, which enables an application to access data from body or environmental sensors on the device or connected wearables.

 <uses-permission android:name="android.permission.BODY_SENSORS"/> 
References
[1] Security guidelines - Permissions
[2] User Data
[3] Permissions and APIs that Access Sensitive Information
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.config.java.privilege_management_android_sensors
Abstract
The program performs operations related to making and receiving telephone calls.
Explanation
Operations related to making and receiving telephone calls must not be performed without cause or consideration. Malicious software exploits these APIs to call premium-pay numbers, thereby stealing money from unwary users.

Example: The following code requests the complete voicemail number.

number = tm.getCompleteVoiceMailNumber(); 
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] Mark L. Murphy Beginning Android 2 Apress
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 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
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[33] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_android_telephony
Abstract
Some permissions specified for Intents are more dangerous to use than others, as they can unintentionally enable other applications to read from or write to resources.
Explanation
Some permissions on Intents are there to be able to grant permissions to external programs that do not usually have that permission, such as FLAG_GRANT_READ_URI_PERMISSION and FLAG_GRANT_WRITE_URI_PERMISSION. If a malicious program is able to intercept this intent, it will then gain permission to read from or write to the specified URI. These can often be more susceptible to being intercepted if the intent is implicit rather than explicit.

Example 1: The following code sets the permission flag to enable writing to a URI within the Intent.


myIntent.setFlags(Intent.FLAG_GRANT_WRITE_URI_PERMISSION);
References
[1] DRD05-J. Do not grant URI permissions on implicit intents CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 267
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[34] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[58] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.semantic.java.privilege_management_dangerous_intent_permission
Abstract
The program attempts to perform an operation without requesting the required permission.
Explanation
Certain Android operations require permissions. Permissions have to be requested by the application at install time by listing them in the AndroidManifest.xml file via <uses-permission/> tags. If the required permissions are not requested, the operations that require these permissions will fail at runtime. In some cases, a java.lang.SecurityException is thrown back to the application. Other times, operations fail silently without an exception.

Example 1: The following code sends a text based SMS.

sms.sendTextMessage(recipient, null, message, PendingIntent.getBroadcast(SmsMessaging.this, 0, new Intent(ACTION_SMS_SENT), 0), null);


This API requires the android.permission.SEND_SMS permission. If this permission is not requested by the application in the manifest file, the application will fail to send an SMS.
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner Android Permissions Demystified
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 280
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.privilege_management_missing_api_permission
Abstract
The program attempts to perform an operation without requesting the required permission.
Explanation
Certain Android operations require permissions. Permissions have to be requested by the application at install time by listing them in the AndroidManifest.xml file via <uses-permission/> tags. If the required permissions are not requested, the operations that require these permissions will fail at runtime. In some cases, a java.lang.SecurityException is thrown back to the application. Other times, operations fail silently without an exception.

Example 1: The following code reads contacts information stored on the device.

Cursor cursor = getContentResolver().query(ContactsContract.Contacts.CONTENT_URI, null, null, null, null);


Reading data from this content provider requires the android.permission.READ_CONTACTS permission. If this permission is not requested by the application in the manifest file, the application will fail to read contacts information.
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner Android Permissions Demystified
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 280
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000213, CCI-002165
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-3 Access Enforcement (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-3 Access Enforcement
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000460 CAT I, APSC-DV-000470 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.dataflow.java.privilege_management_missing_content_provider_permission
Abstract
The program attempts to perform an operation without requesting the required permission.
Explanation
Certain Android operations require permissions. Permissions have to be requested by the application at install time by listing them in the AndroidManifest.xml file via <uses-permission/> tags. If the required permissions are not requested, the operations that require these permissions will fail at runtime. In some cases, a java.lang.SecurityException is thrown back to the application. Other times, operations fail silently without an exception.

Example 1: The following code sends an intent with the android.provider.Telephony.SMS_RECEIVED action.


Intent i = new Intent("android.provider.Telephony.SMS_RECEIVED");
context.sendBroadcast(i);


Sending this intent requires the android.permission.BROADCAST_SMS permission. If this permission is not requested by the application in the manifest file, the application will fail to send the intent.
References
[1] Using Permissions
[2] A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner Android Permissions Demystified
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark availability
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 280
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[35] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II, APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.dataflow.java.privilege_management_missing_intent_permission
Abstract
Privileged code in public methods can be called from anywhere in the JVM.
Explanation
Secure coding principles advocate making access specifiers as restrictive as possible. A method with a public access specifier means that any external code is allowed to call it. Public methods that perform privileged actions can be dangerous when code is shared in libraries or in environments where code can dynamically enter the system (e.g. Code Injection, Dangerous File Inclusion, File Upload, etc).

Example 1: In the following code, doPrivilegedOpenFile() is declared public and performs a privileged operation.

public static void doPrivilegedOpenFile(final String filePath) {
final BadFileNamePrivilegedAction pa = new BadFileNamePrivilegedAction(filePath);

FileInputStream fis = null;
...
fis = (FileInputStream)AccessController.doPrivileged(pa);
...
}
References
[1] Secure Coding Guidelines for the Java Programming Language, version 2.0 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
[2] M. S. Ware Writing secure Java code: taxonomy of heuristics and an evaluation of static analysis tools
[3] FUNDAMENTALS-3: Restrict privileges Oracle
[4] ACCESS-3: Safely invoke java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged Oracle
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[9] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 749
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.5.1 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.7, Requirement 7.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.privilege_management_overly_broad_access_specifier
Abstract
Some functions may enable a programmer to be able to override the permissions specified by a user on an Android device at certain times.
Explanation
Some functions may enable a programmer to specify an explicit value for whether permission was allowed. This can then be abused to violate what the user wants and still assume the permission was given.

Example 1: The following code asks permission to use the user's location on Android while using WebView, yet uses the user's location whether or not permission to do so is granted. This is achieved by manually invoking the callback with true to specify that permission was given:

public void onGeolocationPermissionsShowPrompt(String origin, GeolocationPermissions$Callback callback){
super.onGeolocationPermissionsShowPrompt(origin, callback);
callback.invoke(origin, true, false);
}
References
[1] DRD15-J. Consider privacy concerns when using Geolocation API CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 279
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [22] CWE ID 732
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 4.1.3 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.1.5 General Access Control Design (L1 L2 L3), 4.2.1 Operation Level Access Control (L1 L2 L3), 4.3.3 Other Access Control Considerations (L2 L3), 13.4.2 GraphQL and other Web Service Data Layer Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M3 Insecure Authentication/Authorization
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[36] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.structural.java.privilege_management_overriding_permission_verification
Abstract
The application fails to adhere to the principle of least privilege, which greatly amplifies the risk posed by other vulnerabilities.
Explanation
An application should only have the minimum permissions required for its proper execution. Extra permissions might deter users from installing the application. This permission might be unnecessary for this program.
References
[1] Security guidelines - Permissions
[2] A. P. Felt, E. Chin, S. Hanna, D. Song, and D. Wagner Android Permissions Demystified
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 3
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 250
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[11] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 AC
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A2 Broken Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API1 Broken Object Level Authorization
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-AUTH-1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 7.1.1
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 7.1.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 285
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[60] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authorization (WASC-02)
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authorization
desc.configuration.java.privilege_management_unnecessary_permission
Abstract
Transferring program control to an untrusted program or a transaction, or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the program or the code of the transaction being invoked: the attacker explicitly controls what the program name or transaction code is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the program or the transaction is invoked: the attacker implicitly controls a communication area made available to the invoked program or the transaction.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the name of the program or the code of the transaction that is invoked. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used as or as part of a string representing a program name or a transaction code that is invoked.



3. By executing code from the invoked program or the transaction, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example: The following code excerpt from a privileged system utility reads a value from an HTTP request to determine the code of the transaction to call.


...
tid = request->get_form_field( 'tid' ).

CALL TRANSACTION tid USING bdcdata MODE 'N'
MESSAGES INTO messtab.
...


This code excerpt allows an attacker to call any transaction and potentially execute arbitrary code with the elevated privilege of the application. Because the program does not validate the value read from the HTTP request, if an attacker can control this value, then they can fool the application into running malicious code and take control of the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.abap.process_control
Abstract
Loading libraries or executables from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the library or executable that the program loads: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the library or executable is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the library or executable loads: the attacker implicitly controls what the library or executable name means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the name of the library that is loaded. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used as or as part of a string representing a library or an executable that is loaded by the application.



3. By executing code from the library or executable, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example 1: The following code from a privileged system utility uses the application configuration property APPHOME and then loads a native library based on a relative path from the specified directory.


...
string lib = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings["APPHOME"];
Environment.ExitCode = AppDomain.CurrentDomain.ExecuteAssembly(lib);
...


This code allows an attacker to load a library or an executable and potentially execute arbitrary code with the elevated privilege of the application by modifying the application configuration property APPHOME to point to a different path containing a malicious version of LIBNAME. Because the program does not validate the value read from the environment, if attacker can control the value of the system property APPHOME, then they can fool the application into running malicious code and take control of the system.
References
[1] Dotnet 4.6 API Documentation Microsoft
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.process_control
Abstract
Loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious code on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the library that the program executes: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the library is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the library loads: the attacker implicitly controls what the library name means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the name of the library that is loaded. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.

2. The data is used as part of a string representing a library name that is loaded by the application.

3. By executing code from the library, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example 1: The following code from a privileged application uses a registry entry to determine the directory in which it is installed and loads a library file based on a relative path from the specified directory.


...
RegQueryValueEx(hkey, "APPHOME",
0, 0, (BYTE*)home, &size);
char* lib=(char*)malloc(strlen(home)+strlen(INITLIB));
if (lib) {
strcpy(lib,home);
strcat(lib,INITCMD);
LoadLibrary(lib);
}
...


The code in this example allows an attacker to load an arbitrary library, from which code will be executed with the elevated privilege of the application, by modifying a registry key to specify a different path containing a malicious version of INITLIB. Because the program does not validate the value read from the environment, if an attacker can control the value of APPHOME, they can fool the application into running malicious code.

Example 2: The following code is from a web-based administration utility that allows users access to an interface through which they can update their profile on the system. The utility uses a library named liberty.dll, which is intended to be found in a standard system directory.


LoadLibrary("liberty.dll");


However, the program does not specify an absolute path for liberty.dll. If an attacker places a malicious library named liberty.dll higher in the search order than the intended file and has a way to execute the program in their environment rather than the web server's environment, then the application will load the malicious library instead of the trusted one. Because this type of application runs with elevated privileges, the contents of the attacker's liberty.dll is now be run with elevated privileges, potentially giving them complete control of the system.

This type of attack is possible due to the search order used by LoadLibrary() when an absolute path is not specified. If the current directory is searched before system directories, as was the case up until the most recent versions of Windows, then this type of attack becomes trivial if the attacker may execute the program locally. The search order is operating system version dependent, and is controlled on newer operating systems by the value of this registry key:


HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SafeDllSearchMode


This key is not defined on Windows 2000/NT and Windows Me/98/95 systems.

On systems where the key does exist, LoadLibrary() behaves as follows:
If SafeDllSearchMode is 1, the search order is as follows:
(Default setting for Windows XP-SP1 and later, as well as Windows Server 2003.)
1. The directory from which the application was loaded.
2. The system directory.
3. The 16-bit system directory, if it exists.
4. The Windows directory.
5. The current directory.
6. The directories that are listed in the PATH environment variable.
If SafeDllSearchMode is 0, the search order is as follows:
1. The directory from which the application was loaded.
2. The current directory.
3. The system directory.
4. The 16-bit system directory, if it exists.
5. The Windows directory.
6. The directories that are listed in the PATH environment variable.
References
[1] LoadLibraryW function Microsoft
[2] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[18] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[20] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[31] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.cpp.process_control
Abstract
Transferring program control to an untrusted application program or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the program being invoked: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the application program is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the program is invoked: the attacker implicitly controls a communication area made available to the invoked program.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker might control the name of the program that is invoked. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used as part of, or the entire string representing a program that is invoked or determines some control over the environment in which the program is invoked.



3. By executing code from the invoked program, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example: The following code from a privileged system utility reads a value from the terminal to determine the name of the program to transfer control to.


...
ACCEPT PROGNAME.
EXEC CICS
LINK PROGRAM(PROGNAME)
COMMAREA(COMA)
LENGTH(LENA)
DATALENGTH(LENI)
SYSID('CONX')
END-EXEC.
...


This code allows an attacker to transfer control to a program and potentially execute arbitrary code with the elevated privilege of the application. Because the program does not validate the value read from the terminal, if an attacker can control this value, then they can fool the application into running malicious code and take control of the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.cobol.process_control
Abstract
Loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the library that the program loads: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the library is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the library loads: the attacker implicitly controls what the library name means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the name of the library that is loaded. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used as or as part of a string representing a library that is loaded by the application.



3. By executing code from the library, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example 1: The following code from a privileged system utility uses the system property APPHOME to determine the directory in which it is installed and then loads a native library based on a relative path from the specified directory.


...
String home = System.getProperty("APPHOME");
String lib = home + LIBNAME;
java.lang.Runtime.getRuntime().load(lib);
...


This code allows an attacker to load a library and potentially execute arbitrary code with the elevated privilege of the application by modifying the system property APPHOME to point to a different path containing a malicious version of LIBNAME. Because the program does not validate the value read from the environment, if an attacker can control the value of the system property APPHOME, then they can fool the application into running malicious code and take control of the system.

Example 2: The following code uses System.loadLibrary() to load code from a native library named library.dll, which is normally found in a standard system directory.


...
System.loadLibrary("library.dll");
...


The problem here is that System.loadLibrary() accepts a library name, not a path, for the library to be loaded. From the Java 1.4.2 API documentation this function behaves as follows [1]:

A file containing native code is loaded from the local file system from a place where library files are conventionally obtained. The details of this process are implementation-dependent. The mapping from a library name to a specific filename is done in a system-specific manner.

If an attacker is able to place a malicious copy of library.dll higher in the search order than file the application intends to load, then the application will load the malicious copy instead of the intended file. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with elevated privileges, which means the contents of the attacker's library.dll will now be run with elevated privileges, possibly giving them complete control of the system.
References
[1] Java 1.4.2 API Documentation Sun Microsystems
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.java.process_control
Abstract
Loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the library that the program loads: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the library is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the library loads: the attacker implicitly controls what the library name means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the name of the library that is loaded. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used as or as part of a string representing a library that is loaded by the application.



3. By executing code from the library, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example 1: The following code uses a currently undocumented "feature" of Express to dynamically load a library file. Node.js will then continue to search through its regular library load path for a file or directory containing this library[1].


var express = require('express');
var app = express();

app.get('/', function(req, res, next) {
res.render('tutorial/' + req.params.page);
});


In Express, the page passed to Response.render() will load a library of the extension when previously unknown. This is usually fine for input such as "foo.pug", as this will mean loading the pug library, a well known templating engine. However, if an attacker can control the page and thus the extension, then they can choose to load any library within the Node.js module loading paths. Since the program does not validate the information received from the URL parameter, the attacker may fool the application into running malicious code and take control of the system.
References
[1] Node.js Modules Documentation Node.js
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.javascript.process_control
Abstract
Loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker.
Explanation
Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the library that the program loads: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the library is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the library loads: the attacker implicitly controls what the library name means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the first scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the name of the library that is loaded. Process control vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. Data enters the application from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used as or as part of a string representing a library that is loaded by the application.



3. By executing code from the library, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example 1: The following code from a privileged system utility uses the system property APPHOME to determine the directory in which it is installed and then loads a native library based on a relative path from the specified directory.


...
$home = getenv("APPHOME");
$lib = $home + $LIBNAME;
dl($lib);
...


This code allows an attacker to load a library and potentially execute arbitrary code with the elevated privilege of the application by modifying the system property APPHOME to point to a different path containing a malicious version of LIBNAME. Because the program does not validate the value read from the environment, if an attacker can control the value of the system property APPHOME, then they can fool the application into running malicious code and take control of the system.

Example 2: The following code uses dl() to load code from a library named sockets.dll, which can be loaded from various places depending on your installation and configuration.


...
dl("sockets");
...


The problem here is that dl() accepts a library name, not a path, for the library to be loaded.

If an attacker is able to place a malicious copy of sockets.dll higher in the search order than file the application intends to load, then the application will load the malicious copy instead of the intended file. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with elevated privileges, which means the contents of the attacker's sockets.dll will now be run with elevated privileges, possibly giving them complete control of the system.
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[13] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[14] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[15] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.dataflow.php.process_control
Abstract
Loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands on behalf of an attacker. Within Ruby there are commonly places where both Process Control and Command Injection attacks can occur.
Explanation
Within Ruby, Process Control can commonly occur when a command is being executed, which enables two different attacks:

1. Process Control
Process Control vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the name of the library that the program loads: the attacker explicitly controls what the name of the library is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the library loads: the attacker implicitly controls what the library name means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the second scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to control the environment in such a way that the program loads a malicious version of the named library.

1. An attacker provides a malicious library to an application.

2. The application loads the malicious library because it fails to specify an absolute path or verify the file being loaded.

3. By executing code from the library, the application gives the attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Note that Process Control can occur on Windows platforms when running an external program as the shell used to run the commands is chosen via the environment variables RUBYSHELL or COMSPEC. If an attacker is able to modify either of these environment variables within the current environment, it means that the program pointed by these environment variables will be run with the permission or the running Ruby program.

2. Command Injection
Command injection vulnerabilities take two forms:

- An attacker can change the command that the program executes: the attacker explicitly controls what the command is.

- An attacker can change the environment in which the command executes: the attacker implicitly controls what the command means.

In this case, we are primarily concerned with the second scenario, the possibility that an attacker may be able to change the meaning of the command by changing an environment variable or by putting a malicious executable early in the search path. Command injection vulnerabilities of this type occur when:

1. An attacker modifies an application's environment.

2. The application executes a command without specifying an absolute path or verifying the binary being executed.

3. By executing the command, the application gives an attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Example: The following code runs Kernel.system() to run an executable called program.exe, which is normally found within a standard system directory.


...
system("program.exe")
...


The problem here is twofold:
1. On Windows platforms, Kernel.system() executes something via a shell. If an attacker can manipulate environment variables RUBYSHELL or COMSPEC, they may be able to point to a malicious executable which will be called with the command given to Kernel.system(). Because of the nature of the application, it runs with the privileges necessary to perform system operations, which means the attacker's program.exe will now be run with these privileges, possibly giving them complete control of the system.
2. On all platforms in this scenario, the problem is that the program does not specify an absolute path and fails to clean its environment prior to executing the call to Kernel.system(). If an attacker can modify the $PATH variable to point to a malicious binary called program.exe and then execute the application in their environment, the malicious binary will be loaded instead of the one intended. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with the privileges necessary to perform system operations, which means the attacker's program.exe will now be run with these privileges, possibly giving them complete control of the system.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark partial
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark normal
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 114, CWE ID 494
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[12] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774, CCI-002754
[13] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[14] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[15] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A4 Insecure Direct Object Reference
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A4 Insecure Direct Object References
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A5 Broken Access Control
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20), Improper Filesystem Permissions (WASC-17)
desc.structural.ruby.process_control
Abstract
The InvokerServlet class can allow attackers to invoke any class on the server.
Explanation
The deprecated InvokerServlet class can be used to invoke any class available to the server's virtual machine. By guessing the fully qualified name of a class, an attacker may load not only Servlet classes, but also POJO classes or any other class available to the JVM.
References
[1] Invocation is EVIL
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001764, CCI-001774
[9] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.8
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.8
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.8
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.2.3 - Web Software Access Controls, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001480 CAT II, APSC-DV-001490 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
desc.semantic.java.process_control_invoker_servlet
Abstract
Constructing a SimpleDB select statement that contains user input can allow an attacker to view unauthorized records.
Explanation
Query string injection vulnerabilities occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SimpleDB query string.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SimpleDB select() query that searches for invoices that match a user-specified product category. The user can also specify the column by which the results are sorted. Assume that the application has already properly authenticated and set the value of customerID prior to this code segment.


...
String customerID = getAuthenticatedCustomerID(customerName, customerCredentials);
...
AmazonSimpleDBClient sdbc = new AmazonSimpleDBClient(appAWSCredentials);
String query = "select * from invoices where productCategory = '"
+ productCategory + "' and customerID = '"
+ customerID + "' order by '"
+ sortColumn + "' asc";
SelectResult sdbResult = sdbc.select(new SelectRequest(query));
...


The query that this code intends to execute looks like:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by 'price' asc


However, because the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string, the query only behaves correctly if productCategory and price do not contain single-quote characters. If, however, an attacker provides the string "Fax Machines' or productCategory = \"" for productCategory, and the string "\" order by 'price" for sortColumn, then the query becomes the following:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines' or productCategory = "'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by '" order by 'price' asc


or, in a more human-readable form,


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
or productCategory = "' and customerID = '12345678' order by '"
order by 'price' asc


These inputs allow an attacker to bypass the required authentication for customerID, and allows the attacker to view invoice records matching 'Fax Machines' for all customers.
References
[1] Secure Use of Cloud Storage
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[15] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[16] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[17] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[39] 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.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[40] 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.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[41] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.dataflow.java.query_string_injection_amazon_web_services
Abstract
Constructing a SQLite query statement that contains user input can allow an attacker to view unauthorized records.
Explanation
Query string injection vulnerabilities occur when:
1. Data enters a program from an untrusted source.



In this case Fortify Static Code Analyzer could not determine that the source of the data is trusted.

2. The data is used to dynamically construct a SQLite query.

The SQLite query string injection allows malicious users to view unauthorized records, but does not allow them to alter the state of the database in any way.

Example 1: The following code dynamically constructs and executes a SQLite query that searches for invoices associated with a customer and a user-specified product category. The user can also specify the column by which the results should be sorted. Assume that the program has already properly authenticated and set the value of customerID prior to this code segment.


...
productCategory = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("productCategory");
sortColumn = this.getIntent().getExtras().getString("sortColumn");
customerID = getAuthenticatedCustomerID(customerName, customerCredentials);
c = invoicesDB.query(Uri.parse(invoices), columns, "productCategory = '" + productCategory + "' and customerID = '" + customerID + "'", null, null, null, "'" + sortColumn + "'asc", null);
...


The query that this code intends to execute looks like:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by 'price' asc


However, the query is constructed dynamically by concatenating a constant base query string and a user input string productCategory. So the query behaves correctly only if productCategory and sortColumn do not contain single-quote characters. If an attacker provides the string "Fax Machines' or productCategory = \"" for productCategory, and the string "\" order by 'price" for sortColumn, then the query becomes:


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines' or productCategory = "'
and customerID = '12345678'
order by '" order by 'price' asc


or, in a more readable form,


select * from invoices
where productCategory = 'Fax Machines'
or productCategory = "' and customerID = '12345678' order by '"
order by 'price' asc


These inputs allow an attacker to bypass the required authentication for customerID and allows the attacker to view invoice records matching 'Fax Machines' for all customers.
References
[1] Android Developers-Reference: SQLite Database
[2] SQL as Understood by SQLite
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 2
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark complete
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 89
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [6] CWE ID 089
[11] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [6] CWE ID 089
[12] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [6] CWE ID 089
[13] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [3] CWE ID 089
[14] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [3] CWE ID 089
[15] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310, CCI-002754
[16] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[17] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[18] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[19] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[26] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.3.4 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.5 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[27] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[28] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2023 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[29] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[30] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[38] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[39] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[40] 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.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[41] 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.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[42] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[43] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[44] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 089
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3540.1 CAT I, APP3540.3 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[63] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[64] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[65] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002540 CAT I, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[66] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 SQL Injection (WASC-19)
[67] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 SQL Injection
desc.semantic.java.query_string_injection_android_provider
Abstract
The application installs an application from shared storage, allowing a malicious app to replace the package to be installed.
Explanation
The app installs an application from shared storage where any application with external storage read/write permissions can write to. Due to a race condition, the malicious app monitoring the folder can swap a downloaded APK file for an alternate APK file, which the installation process will use in place of the legitimate update.

Example 1: The following code installs an applications from the shared storage:


Intent intent = new Intent(Intent.ACTION_VIEW);
intent.setDataAndType(Uri.fromFile(new File(Environment.getExternalStorageDirectory() + "/download/" + "app.apk")), "application/vnd.android.package-archive");
intent.setFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NEW_TASK);
startActivity(intent);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 362, CWE ID 367
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-003178
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.11.2 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.11.3 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L3), 11.1.6 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-RESILIENCE-2
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3630.1 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3630.1 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3630.1 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3630.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3630.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3630.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3630.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.race_condition_app_download
Abstract
Assigning a static field to a new object calls the constructor even if it is dependent on other variables initialization, which may lead to objects being initialized incorrectly.
Explanation
When a Java class is initialized, it calls the initializers for static fields declared in the class prior to the class constructor. This means that a constructor assigned to this will be called prior to other code, and if this constructor is then dependent on other fields or variables being initialized, it may lead to partially initialized objects, or objects initialized with incorrect values.

Example 1: The following class declares a static field and assigns it to a new object.


...
public class Box{
public int area;
public static final int width = 10;
public static final Box box = new Box();
public static final int height = (int) (Math.random() * 100);

public Box(){
area = width * height;
}
...
}
...


In Example 1, the developer would expect that box.area would be a random integer that happens to be a multiple of 10, due to width being equal to 10. In reality however, this will always have a hardcoded value of 0. Static final fields declared with a compile-time constant are initialized first, and then each one is executed in order. This means that since height is not a compile-time constant, it is declared after the declaration of box, and therefore the constructor is called prior to the field height being initialized.

Example 2: The following classes declare static fields that rely on each other.


...
class Foo{
public static final int f = Bar.b - 1;
...
}
...
class Bar{
public static final int b = Foo.f + 1;
...
}

This example is perhaps easier to identify, but would be dependent on which class is loaded first by the JVM. In this example Foo.f could be either -1 or 0, and Bar.b could be either 0 or 1.
References
[1] DCL00-J. Prevent class initialization cycles CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark complete
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 4
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark integrity
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 362, CWE ID 367
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-003178
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.11.2 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.11.3 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L3), 11.1.6 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3630.1 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3630.1 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3630.1 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3630.1 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3630.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3630.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3630.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
desc.structural.java.race_condition_class_initialization_cycle
Abstract
The methods parse() and format() in java.text.Format contain a design flaw that can cause one user to see another user's data.
Explanation
The methods parse() and format() in java.text.Format contains a race condition that can cause one user to see another user's data.

Example 1: The following code shows how this design flaw can manifest itself.


public class Common {

private static SimpleDateFormat dateFormat;
...

public String format(Date date) {
return dateFormat.format(date);
}
...

final OtherClass dateFormatAccess=new OtherClass();
...

public void function_running_in_thread1(){
System.out.println("Time in thread 1 should be 12/31/69 4:00 PM, found: "+ dateFormatAccess.format(new Date(0)));
}

public void function_running_in_thread2(){
System.out.println("Time in thread 2 should be around 12/29/09 6:26 AM, found: "+ dateFormatAccess.format(new Date(System.currentTimeMillis())));
}
}


While this code will behave correctly in a single-user environment, if two threads run it at the same time they could produce the following output:

Time in thread 1 should be 12/31/69 4:00 PM, found: 12/31/69 4:00 PM
Time in thread 2 should be around 12/29/09 6:26 AM, found: 12/31/69 4:00 PM

In this case, the date from the first thread is shown in the output from the second thread due a race condition in the implementation of format().
References
[1] Bug 4228335 : SimpleDateFormat is not threadsafe Sun Microsystems
[2] The Java Servlet Specification Sun Microsystems
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 5.0
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 5
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[7] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 362, CWE ID 488
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090, CCI-003178
[12] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.11.2 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 7.3.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3630.1 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3630.1 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3630.1 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3630.1 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3630.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3630.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3630.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
desc.structural.java.race_condition_format_flaw
Abstract
Servlet member fields might allow one user to see another user's data.
Explanation
Many Servlet developers do not understand that a Servlet is a singleton. There is only one instance of the Servlet, and that single instance is used and re-used to handle multiple requests that are processed simultaneously by different threads.

A common result of this misunderstanding is that developers use Servlet member fields in such a way that one user may inadvertently see another user's data. In other words, storing user data in Servlet member fields introduces a data access race condition.

Example 1: The following Servlet stores the value of a request parameter in a member field and then later echoes the parameter value to the response output stream.


public class GuestBook extends HttpServlet {

String name;

protected void doPost (HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse res) {
name = req.getParameter("name");
...
out.println(name + ", thanks for visiting!");
}
}


While this code will work perfectly in a single-user environment, if two users access the Servlet at approximately the same time, it is possible for the two request handler threads to interleave in the following way:

Thread 1: assign "Dick" to name
Thread 2: assign "Jane" to name
Thread 1: print "Jane, thanks for visiting!"
Thread 2: print "Jane, thanks for visiting!"

Thereby showing the first user the second user's name.
References
[1] The Java Servlet Specification Sun Microsystems
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 2.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.0
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 5
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 362, CWE ID 488
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090, CCI-003178
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.11.2 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[27] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3630.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3630.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3630.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3630.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3630.1 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3630.1 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3630.1 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Information Leakage (WASC-13)
[51] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.structural.java.singleton_member_field_race_condition
Abstract
Database connections stored in static fields will be shared between threads.
Explanation
A transactional resource object such as database connection can only be associated with one transaction at a time. For this reason, a connection should not be shared between threads and should not be stored in a static field. See Section 4.2.3 of the J2EE Specification for more details.

Example 1:

public class ConnectionManager {

private static Connection conn = initDbConn();
...
}
References
[1] Java 2 Platform Enterprise Edition Specification, v1.4 Sun Microsystems
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[3] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 3.1
[4] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Web Services Foundations Benchmark 1
[5] Standards Mapping - CIS Google Kubernetes Engine Benchmark confidentiality
[6] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark partial
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 362, CWE ID 567
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[10] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001090, CCI-003178
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-4 Information in Shared Resources (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-4 Information in Shared System Resources
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.11.2 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3630.1 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3630.1 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3630.1 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3630.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3630.1 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3630.1 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3630.1 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II, APSC-DV-002380 CAT II
desc.structural.java.race.dbconn
Abstract
The program can potentially dereference a null-pointer, which can cause a segmentation fault.
Explanation
Null-pointer exceptions usually occur when one or more of the programmer's assumptions is violated. There are at least three flavors of this problem: check-after-dereference, dereference-after-check, and dereference-after-store. A check-after-dereference error occurs when a program dereferences a pointer that can be null before checking if the pointer is null. Dereference-after-check errors occur when a program makes an explicit check for null, but proceeds to dereference the pointer when it is known to be null. Errors of this type are often the result of a typo or programmer oversight. A dereference-after-store error occurs when a program explicitly sets a pointer to null and dereferences it later. This error is often the result of a programmer initializing a variable to null when it is declared.

Most null-pointer issues result in general software reliability problems, but if an attacker can intentionally trigger a null-pointer dereference, the attacker might be able to use the resulting exception to bypass security logic in order to mount a denial of service attack, or to cause the application to reveal debugging information that will be valuable in planning subsequent attacks.

Example 1: In the following code, the programmer confirms that the object foo is null and subsequently dereferences it erroneously. If foo is null when it is checked in the if statement, then a null dereference occurs, which causes a null-pointer exception.


if (foo is null) {
foo.SetBar(val);
...
}
Example 2: In the following code, the programmer assumes that the variable foo is not null and confirms this assumption by dereferencing the object. However, the programmer later contradicts the assumption by checking foo against null. If foo can be null when it is checked in the if statement then it can also be null when it is dereferenced and might cause a null-pointer exception. Either the dereference is unsafe or the subsequent check is unnecessary.


foo.SetBar(val);
...
if (foo is not null) {
...
}
Example 3: In the following code, the programmer explicitly sets the variable foo to null. Later, the programmer dereferences foo before checking the object for a null value.


Foo foo = null;
...
foo.SetBar(val);
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[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 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.redundant_null_check
Abstract
The program can potentially dereference a null-pointer, thereby causing a segmentation fault.
Explanation
Null-pointer exceptions usually occur when one or more of the programmer's assumptions is violated. There are at least three flavors of this problem: check-after-dereference, dereference-after-check, and dereference-after-store. A check-after-dereference error occurs when a program dereferences a pointer that can be null before checking if the pointer is null. Dereference-after-check errors occur when a program makes an explicit check for null, but proceeds to dereference the pointer when it is known to be null. Errors of this type are often the result of a typo or programmer oversight. A dereference-after-store error occurs when a program explicitly sets a pointer to null and dereferences it later. This error is often the result of a programmer initializing a variable to null when it is declared.

Most null-pointer issues result in general software reliability problems, but if an attacker can intentionally trigger a null-pointer dereference, the attacker may be able to use the resulting exception to bypass security logic in order to mount a denial of service attack, or to cause the application to reveal debugging information that will be valuable in planning subsequent attacks.

Example 1: In the following code, the programmer assumes that the variable ptr is not NULL. That assumption is made explicit when the programmer dereferences the pointer. This assumption is later contradicted when the programmer checks ptr against NULL. If ptr can be NULL when it is checked in the if statement then it can also be NULL when it dereferenced and may cause a segmentation fault.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
Example 2: In the following code, the programmer confirms that the variable ptr is NULL and subsequently dereferences it erroneously. If ptr is NULL when it is checked in the if statement, then a null dereference will occur, thereby causing a segmentation fault.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
Example 3: In the following code, the programmer forgets that the string '\0' is actually 0 or NULL, thereby dereferencing a null-pointer and causing a segmentation fault.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
Example 4: In the following code, the programmer explicitly sets the variable ptr to NULL. Later, the programmer dereferences ptr before checking the object for a null value.


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[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 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.redundant_null_check
Abstract
The program can dereference a null-pointer, thereby causing a null-pointer exception.
Explanation
Null-pointer exceptions usually occur when one or more of the programmer's assumptions is violated. Specifically, dereference-after-check errors occur when a program makes an explicit check for null, but proceeds to dereference the object when it is known to be null. Errors of this type are often the result of a typo or programmer oversight.

Most null-pointer issues result in general software reliability problems, but if attackers can intentionally cause the program to dereference a null-pointer, they can use the resulting exception to mount a denial of service attack or to cause the application to reveal debugging information that will be valuable in planning subsequent attacks.

Example 1: In the following code, the programmer confirms that the variable foo is null and subsequently dereferences it erroneously. If foo is null when it is checked in the if statement, then a null dereference will occur, thereby causing a null-pointer exception.


if (foo == null) {
foo.setBar(val);
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Azure Kubernetes Service Benchmark 1.0
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service Benchmark 4.0
[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 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.internal.java.null_dereference_dereference_after_check