Kingdom: Code Quality

Poor code quality leads to unpredictable behavior. From a user's perspective that often manifests itself as poor usability. For an attacker it provides an opportunity to stress the system in unexpected ways.

4 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Functions with inconsistent implementations across operating systems and operating system versions cause portability problems.
Explanation
The behavior of functions in this category varies by operating system, and at times, even by operating system version. Implementation differences can include:

- Slight differences in the way parameters are interpreted leading to inconsistent results.

- Some implementations of the function carry significant security risks.

- The function might not be defined on all platforms.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.portability_flaw
Abstract
The use of hardcoded file separators causes portability problems.
Explanation
Different operating systems use different characters as file separators. For example, Microsoft Windows systems use "\", while UNIX systems use "/". When applications have to run on different platforms, the use of hardcoded file separators can lead to incorrect execution of application logic and potentially a denial of service.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded file separator to open a file:


...
var file:File = new File(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.actionscript.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
The use of hardcoded file separators causes portability problems.
Explanation
Different operating systems use different characters as file separators. For example, Microsoft Windows systems use "\", while UNIX systems use "/". When applications have to run on different platforms, the use of hardcoded file separators can lead to incorrect execution of application logic and potentially a denial of service.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded file separator to open a file:


...
FileStream f = File.Create(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.dotnet.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
The use of hardcoded file separators causes portability problems.
Explanation
Different operating systems use different characters as file separators. For example, Microsoft Windows systems use "\", while UNIX systems use "/". When applications have to run on different platforms, the use of hardcoded file separators can lead to incorrect execution of application logic and potentially a denial of service.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded file separator to open a file:


...
File file = new File(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
The use of hardcoded file separators causes portability problems.
Explanation
Different operating systems use different characters as file separators. For example, Microsoft Windows systems use "\", while UNIX systems use "/". When applications have to run on different platforms, the use of hardcoded file separators can lead to incorrect execution of application logic and potentially a denial of service.

Example 1: The following code uses a hardcoded file separator to open a file:


...
os.open(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.python.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
Unexpected portability problems can be found when the locale is not specified.
Explanation
When comparing data that may be locale-dependent, an appropriate locale should be specified.

Example 1: The following example tries to perform validation to determine if user input includes a <script> tag.

...
public String tagProcessor(String tag){
if (tag.toUpperCase().equals("SCRIPT")){
return null;
}
//does not contain SCRIPT tag, keep processing input
...
}
...


The problem with Example 1 is that java.lang.String.toUpperCase() when used without a locale uses the rules of the default locale. Using the Turkish locale "title".toUpperCase() returns "T\u0130TLE", where "\u0130" is the "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE" character. This can lead to unexpected results, such as in Example 1 where this will prevent the word "script" from being caught by this validation, potentially leading to a Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability.
References
[1] STR02-J. Specify an appropriate locale when comparing locale-dependent data CERT
[2] String (JavaDoc) Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.controlflow.java.portability_flaw_locale_dependent_comparison
Abstract
The use of native SQL causes portability problems.
Explanation
SAP systems are designed to be platform independent. Open SQL, SAP's portable SQL dialect, makes applications independent of a specific database vendor's JDBC driver. Usage of Open SQL abstracts the intricacies of the underlying database, and provides a common interface to application programs for all database operations. However, native SQL is specific to the underlying database and therefore its usage on other platforms may lead to incorrect execution of application logic and potentially a denial of service.
Example 1: The following code uses native SQL:


...
import java.sql.PreparedStatement;
import com.sap.sql.NativeSQLAccess;

String mssOnlyStmt = "...";
// variant 1
PreparedStatement ps =
NativeSQLAccess.prepareNativeStatement(
conn, mssOnlyStmt);
. . .
// variant 2
Statement stmt =
NativeSQLAccess.createNativeStatement(conn);
int result = stmt.execute(mssOnlyStmt);
. . .
// variant 3
CallableStatement cs =
NativeSQLAccess.prepareNativeCall(
conn, mssOnlyStmt);
. . .
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
desc.structural.java.portability_flaw_native_sql