1591 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
An attacker will be able to create a file on the system with arbitrary contents.
Explanation
An attacker will be able to create a file in the server's file system with arbitrary contents. The file created could then be used later by the attacker in order to perform additional attacks, dependent on the ability to control the contents injected into the file.

If the attacker is capable of controlling the contents of the file and the file is served by a web server, then he will be able to inject a malicious web shell, which can let him execute arbitrary commands on the server remotely.

If the attacker may create the file with the contents from a different file in the file system, he will be able to read arbitrary files on the file system that can be accessed using the permissions of the vulnerable application.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 94, CWE ID 98, CWE ID 494
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [18] CWE ID 094
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [17] CWE ID 094
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [25] CWE ID 094
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [23] CWE ID 094
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [11] CWE ID 094
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167, CCI-002754
[8] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.14.2 Configuration Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 5.2.5 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.2.8 Sanitization and Sandboxing Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.6 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.3.9 Output Encoding and Injection Prevention Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.3 File Execution Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 12.3.6 File Execution Requirements (L2 L3), 14.2.3 Dependency (L1 L2 L3), 14.2.4 Dependency (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A6 Injection Flaws
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A2 Injection Flaws
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A1 Injection
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1, Requirement 6.5.2
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] 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
[29] 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
[30] 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.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 073
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I, APP3570 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I, APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[54] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
[55] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Path Traversal
desc.dataflow.php.dangerous_file_injection
Abstract
Functions that cannot be used safely should never be used.
Explanation
Certain functions behave in dangerous ways regardless of how they are used. Functions in this category were often implemented without taking security concerns into account.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 242
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 27-0-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 30.0.1
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.dangerous_function.master
Abstract
Functions that cannot be used safely should never be used.
Explanation
Certain functions behave in dangerous ways regardless of how they are used. Functions in this category were often implemented without taking security concerns into account.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 242
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 27-0-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 30.0.1
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
desc.semantic.php.dangerous_function.master
Abstract
Functions that cannot be used safely should never be used.
Explanation
DBMS_UTILITY.EXEC_DDL_STATEMENT will only execute statements classified as part of the Data Definition Language. Other statements not supported by embedded SQL will be silently ignored. This behavior makes it difficult to detect errors when using the procedure.
References
[1] How to write SQL injection proof PL/SQL
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 242
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 27-0-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 30.0.1
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
desc.semantic.sql.dangerous_function_exec_ddl
Abstract
Functions that cannot be used safely or are very difficult to do so should not be used.
Explanation
Certain functions behave in dangerous or unexpected ways. Functions in this category were often implemented without taking security concerns into account.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 242
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 27-0-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 30.0.1
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
desc.structural.ruby.dangerous_function
Abstract
Using the ASNative undocumented function enables an attacker to inject malicious functionality into the application.
Explanation
Use of ASNative function was detected. ASNative is an undocumented function reference list. Developers can use the list to call Flash system functions by using indices into the list. For example, the trace() function can also be referenced as ASNative(100, 4). Because the use of ASNative allows a developer to hide the intended function name, this could indicate malicious intent. Support for ASNative is discontinued for Flash Player versions 7 and later. Malware developers can use the ASNative function to hide malicious content from auditors. This might indicate malicious activity being performed by the Flash application.
Example 1:
ASNative(100, 4)("Hi"); //is equivalent to trace("Hi");
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 676
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001167
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-18 Mobile Code (P2)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-18 Mobile Code
[6] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-003300 CAT II
desc.dynamic.actionscript.dangerous_function_asnative
Abstract
Functions that cannot be used safely should never be used.
Explanation
Certain functions behave in dangerous ways regardless of how they are used. Functions in this category were often implemented without taking security concerns into account.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 676
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.5
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 18-0-5
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 21.2.2
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-16 Memory Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-16 Memory Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A5 Buffer Overflow
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.2
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.2
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.2
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Buffer Overflow (WASC-07)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Buffer Overflow
desc.semantic.cpp.dangerous_function_strcpy
Abstract
Functions that cannot be used safely should never be used.
Explanation
Certain functions behave dangerously regardless of how they are used. Functions in this category were often implemented without consideration for security.

Example 1: Given the URL http://www.example.com/index.php?param=..., the following snippet of php within index.php will print the value of the URL parameter param (passed in-place of the "...") to the screen if it matches the POSIX regular expression '^[[:alnum:]]*$' representing "zero or more alphanumeric characters":

<?php
$pattern = '^[[:alnum:]]*$';
$string = $_GET['param'];
if (ereg($pattern, $string)) {
echo($string);
}
?>


While Example 1 operates as expected with alphanumeric input, because the unsafe ereg() function is used to validate tainted input, it is possible to carry out a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack via null byte injection. By passing a value for param containing a valid alphanumeric string followed by a null byte and then a <script> tag (e.g. "Hello123%00<script>alert("XSS")</script>"), ereg($pattern, $string) will still return true, as the ereg() function ignores everything following a null byte character when reading the input string (left-to-right). In this example, this means that the injected <script> tag following the null byte will be displayed to the user and evaluated.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 676
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT I
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP2060.4 CAT II, APP3590.2 CAT II
desc.semantic.php.dangerous_function_unsafe_regular_expression
Abstract
The function xp_cmdshell cannot be used safely. It should not be used.
Explanation
Certain functions behave in dangerous ways regardless of how they are used. The function xp_cmdshell launches a Windows command shell to execute the provided command string. The command executes either in the default system or a provided proxy context. However, there is no way to limit a user to prespecified set of privileged operations and any privilege grant opens up the user to execute any command string.
References
[1] xp_cmdshell
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 242
[3] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M7 Client Side Injection
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 7.1.2
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 7.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 7.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 7.2.2
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.4 - Authentication and Access Control
[14] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
[15] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 OS Commanding (WASC-31)
[16] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 OS Commanding
desc.semantic.sql.dangerous_function_xp_cmdshell
Abstract
The method has been annotated as dangerous. All uses of this method will be flagged as issues.
Explanation
The annotation FortifyDangerous has been applied to this method. This is used to indicate that it is dangerous and all uses should be examined for safety.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 749
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 14.5.1 Validate HTTP Request Header Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2011 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 676
desc.structural.java.dangerous_method
Abstract
The variable is of a type which has been annotated as dangerous.
Explanation
The annotation FortifyDangerous has been applied to this type. This is used to indicate that it is dangerous and all uses should be examined for safety.

References
[1] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[2] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.structural.java.dangerous_class_variable
Abstract
An attempt was made to use one of the following accounts to connect to the database: admin, administrator, guest, root, or sa.
Explanation
Windows Azure SQL Database supports only SQL Server Authentication. Windows Authentication (integrated security) is not supported. Users must provide credentials (login and password) every time they connect to Windows Azure SQL Database. Per Microsoft Windows Azure SQL Database General Guidelines and Limitations, the following account names are not available: admin, administrator, guest, root, sa.
References
[1] Security Guidelines and Limitations (Windows Azure SQL Database)
[2] Windows Azure SQL Database Concepts
[3] Transact-SQL Support (Windows Azure SQL Database)
[4] Development Considerations in Windows Azure SQL Database
[5] Managing Databases and Logins in Windows Azure SQL Database
[6] Configure and manage Azure AD authentication with Azure SQL
[7] How to: Connect to Windows Azure SQL Database Using sqlcmd
[8] Copying Databases in Windows Azure SQL Database
[9] Data Types (Windows Azure SQL Database)
[10] Deprecated Database Engine Features in SQL Server 2012
[11] EXECUTE AS (Transact-SQL)
[12] Security Statements
[13] System Stored Procedures (Windows Azure SQL Database)
[14] Guidelines and Limitations (Windows Azure SQL Database)
[15] General Guidelines and Limitations (Windows Azure SQL Database)
[16] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 272
[17] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [22] CWE ID 269
[18] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [15] CWE ID 269
[19] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000381, CCI-002233, CCI-002235
[20] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[21] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-6 Least Privilege (P1), CM-7 Least Functionality (P1)
[22] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-6 Least Privilege, CM-7 Least Functionality
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.4.3 Access Control Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.2 Malicious Code Search (L2 L3)
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M1 Improper Credential Usage
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A01 Broken Access Control
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 7.2.2
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 5.3 - Authentication and Access Control, Control Objective C.2.1.2 - Web Software Access Controls
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3500 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3500 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3500 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3500 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3500 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3500 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3500 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 4.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000500 CAT II, APSC-DV-000510 CAT I, APSC-DV-001500 CAT II
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 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.sql.code_quality_database_authentication_use_of_restricted_accounts
Abstract
This statement will never be executed.
Explanation
The surrounding code makes it impossible for this statement to ever be executed.

Example 1: The condition for the second if statement is impossible to satisfy. It requires that the variable s be non-null, while on the only path where s can be assigned a non-null value there is a return statement.


String s = null;

if (b) {
s = "Yes";
return;
}

if (s != null) {
Dead();
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 561
[2] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 2.1
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 2.1
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-1, Rule 0-1-2
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.0.1, Rule 0.0.2
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-135
desc.internal.cpp.dead_code
Abstract
A function defines code with no effect.
Explanation
In Solidity, developers can write code that has no effect, which can lead to unexpected behavior or code that does not perform the intended action.

Example 1: The following code tries to update the balance of msg.sender but uses == instead of = to do so, which has no effect.


function deposit(uint amount) public payable {
require(msg.value == amount, 'incorrect amount');
balance[msg.sender] == amount;
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 561
[2] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 2.1
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 2.1
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-1, Rule 0-1-2
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.0.1, Rule 0.0.2
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-135
desc.structural.solidity.swc135
Abstract
Use of parameters that trigger unexposed, privileged functionality can allow an attacker to gain unauthorized access to application resources.
Explanation
Unused parameters represent data that is processed by the application code but is not made available to the users through any of the request parameters. These parameters can be used to aid debugging, enable privileged functionality known only to the programmers or administrators of the web site, or act as a backdoor. If discovered by an attacker, use of these parameters can lead to unauthorized access to privileged functionality or be used to inject arbitrary code into the application. Programmers sometimes leave behind functionality in product code that was only meant for debugging and incorrectly assume they can hide privileged functionality by not exposing it through publicly accessible interfaces.

The presence of unused parameters can expose an application to certain risks:
- It can indicate dead code in an application, which is not exposed to legitimate application users. However, a malicious user might get access to functionality in dead code by supplying brute force parameter name/value pairs (e.g. debug=true). If the code accesses sensitive resources such as databases and file IO, it can threaten the overall security of the application.
- It can indicate a backdoor into the application planted by a developer with malicious intent, which can be used later to gain unlawful access to application data or perform serious attacks against the application.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 235
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001082
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-2 Application Partitioning (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-2 Separation of System and User Functionality
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.1 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.3 General Data Protection (L2 L3)
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3050 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3050 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3050 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3050 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3050 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3050 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3050 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002150 CAT II
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.dead_code_unused_parameter
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them thereby creating a resource exhaustion condition.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the current work process will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the work process indefinitely.


...
CALL FUNCTION 'ENQUE_SLEEP'
EXPORTING
SECONDS = usrInput.
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.abap.denial_of_service
Abstract
The application uses the client's remote IP address to create a RateLimitPartition.
Explanation
Creating RateLimitPartitions based on the client's IP addresses leaves the application vulnerable to Denial of Service Attacks that employ IP Source Address Spoofing.

Example 1: In the following example, the GetTokenBucketLimiter() method uses a remote IP address (RemoteIpAddress) as the partition key when creating a RateLimitPartition:


...
builder.Services.AddRateLimiter(limiterOptions => {
limiterOptions.GlobalLimiter = PartitionedRateLimiter.Create<HttpContext, IPAddress>(context => {

IPAddress? ip = context.Connection.RemoteIpAddress;

return RateLimitPartition.GetTokenBucketLimiter(ip!, _ =>
new TokenBucketRateLimiterOptions
{
TokenLimit = 7
});
});
});
...
References
[1] By Arvin Kahbazi, Maarten Balliauw, and Rick Anderson Rate limiting middleware in ASP.NET Core Microsoft
[2] P, Ferguson Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing Cisco Systems
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.asp_dotnet_core_rate_limitting_denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the current process will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the process indefinitely.


unsigned int usrSleepTime = uatoi(usrInput);
sleep(usrSleepTime);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.cpp.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


Sleep(url.duration);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.cfml.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a Future function will be executed. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the Future function indefinitely.


final duration = Platform.environment['DURATION'];
Future.delayed(Duration(seconds: int.parse(duration!)), () => ...);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker can cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers might be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs enable the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: Setting a service timeout with untrusted data can leave the service unresponsive if an attacker sets a large value.


func test(r *http.Request) {
...
i, _ := strconv.Atoi(r.FormValue("TIME"))
runtime.KeepAlive(i)
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


int usrSleepTime = Integer.parseInt(usrInput);
Thread.sleep(usrSleepTime);
Example 2: The following code reads a String from a zip file. Because it uses the readLine() method, it will read an unbounded amount of input. An attacker may take advantage of this code to cause an OutOfMemoryException or to consume a large amount of memory so that the program spends more time performing garbage collection or runs out of memory during some subsequent operation.


InputStream zipInput = zipFile.getInputStream(zipEntry);
Reader zipReader = new InputStreamReader(zipInput);
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(zipReader);
String line = br.readLine();
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] 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
[17] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 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 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the size of the file system to be used. By specifying a large number, an attacker may deplete file system resources.


var fsync = requestFileSystemSync(0, userInput);
Example 2: The following code writes to a file. Because the file may be continuously written and rewritten until it is deemed closed by the user agent, disk quota, IO bandwidth, and processes that may require analyzing the content of the file are impacted.


function oninit(fs) {
fs.root.getFile('applog.txt', {create: false}, function(fileEntry) {
fileEntry.createWriter(function(fileWriter) {
fileWriter.seek(fileWriter.length);
var bb = new BlobBuilder();
bb.append('Appending to a file');
fileWriter.write(bb.getBlob('text/plain'));
}, errorHandler);
}, errorHandler);
}

window.requestFileSystem(window.TEMPORARY, 1024*1024, oninit, errorHandler);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which the system should delay further processing. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the system indefinitely.


procedure go_sleep (
usrSleepTime in NUMBER)
is
dbms_lock.sleep(usrSleepTime);
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.sql.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers can deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, however most flooding attacks can be defused at the network layer. More problematic are defects that enable an attacker to overload the application with a small number of requests. These defects enable the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the duration of a connection timeout for the connect function. By specifying a large number, an attacker can tie up the connect function indefinitely.


...
insecure_config_ssl_connection_timeout = {
'user': username,
'password': retrievedPassword,
'host': databaseHost,
'port': "3306",
'connection_timeout': connection_timeout
}

mysql.connector.connect(**insecure_config_ssl_connection_timeout)
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service
Abstract
An attacker could cause the program to crash or otherwise become unavailable to legitimate users.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to deny service to legitimate users by flooding the application with requests, but flooding attacks can often be defused at the network layer. More problematic are bugs that allow an attacker to overload the application using a small number of requests. Such bugs allow the attacker to specify the quantity of system resources their requests will consume or the duration for which they will use them.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the amount of time for which a thread will sleep. By specifying a large number, an attacker may tie up the thread indefinitely. With a small number of requests, the attacker may deplete the application's thread pool.


Kernel.sleep(user_input)
Example 2: The following code reads a String from a file. Because it uses the readline() method without specifying a limit, it will read an unbounded amount of input. An attacker may take advantage of this code to cause the process to hang whilst consuming more and more memory, until it may potentially run out of memory entirely.


fd = File.new(myFile)
line = fd.readline
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Directive 4.14
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-3-1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-4 Security Impact Analysis (P2), CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-4 Impact Analyses, CM-6 Configuration Settings, SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] 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
[16] 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, Control Objective C.3.4 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[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 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 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, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002950 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service
Abstract
A function calls an external contract inside a loop statement which can result in Denial of Service.
Explanation
A call made to an external contract can fail, which might cause a Denial of Service inside the calling contract if the failure is not handled correctly. Which can leave the contract unavailable for further use.

This is especially relevant when the external call is executed inside a loop statement and even more when dealing with payments, where it is usually better to let users withdraw funds instead of pushing funds to them.

Example 1: The following code uses a for loop statement to refund all involved addresses by using the send external call.


function refundAll() public {
for(uint x; x < refundAddresses.length; x++) {
require(refundAddresses[x].send(refunds[refundAddresses[x]]));
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 703
[2] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-113
desc.structural.solidity.swc113
Abstract
Allowing user input to control format parameters could enable an attacker to cause exceptions to be thrown or leak information.
Explanation
Attackers may be able to modify the format string argument such that an exception is thrown. If this exception is left uncaught, it may crash the application. Alternatively, if sensitive information is used within the other arguments, attackers may change the format string to reveal this information.

Example 1: The following code allows a user to specify the format string argument to Formatter.format().


...
Formatter formatter = new Formatter(Locale.US);
String format = "The customer: %s %s has the balance %4$." + userInput + "f";
formatter.format(format, firstName, lastName, accountNo, balance);
...


The intention of this program is to let the user specify the decimal points to which it shows the balance. In reality though, there are no restrictions on this. If the user can specify anything, it may cause an exception such as java.util.MissingFormatArgumentException to be thrown, and since this is not within a try block, could lead to application failure.
Even more critical within this example, if an attacker can specify the user input "2f %3$s %4$.2", the format string would be "The customer: %s %s has the balance %4$.2f %3$s %4$.2". This would then lead to the sensitive accountNo to be included within the resulting string.
References
[1] IDS06-J. Exclude unsanitized user input from format strings CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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 Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - 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.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_format_string
Abstract
An attacker can trigger excessive CPU and memory usage by crafting expensive nested GraphQL queries to cause Denial of Service (DoS).
Explanation
The GraphQL query language for APIs provides a runtime to query existing data. GraphQL schema is a model consisting of data objects their fields and types, and their relationships to other data objects. References between different data objects might create a cycle. An attacker can trigger excessive CPU and memory usage by crafting a malicious nested and expensive cyclic query to cause a Denial of Service (DoS).

For example, consider this GraphQL schema snippet:


type User {
id: ID!
name: String
profile: Profile
}
type Profile {
id: ID!
bio: String
user: User
preferences: Preferences
}
type Preferences {
id: ID!
theme: String
user: User
}


In this example, User references Profile, Profile references Preferences, and Preferences references back to User creating a cycle.
A sample query to create a cycle:

query {
user(id:1) {
id
name
profile {
id
bio
preferences {
id
theme
user {
name
}
}
}
}
}
References
[1] GraphQL Specification
[2] Securing Your GraphQL API from Malicious Queries | Apollo GraphQL Blog
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 770
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [24] CWE ID 400
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.4 Business Logic Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 13.4.1 GraphQL Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[13] 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
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dynamic.xtended_preview.denial_of_service_graphql
Abstract
The program calls a method that parses doubles and can cause the thread to hang.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations ofjava.lang.Double.parseDouble() and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when parsing any number in the range [2^(-1022) - 2^(-1075) : 2^(-1022) - 2^(-1076)]. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: The following code uses a vulnerable method.

Double d = Double.parseDouble(request.getParameter("d"));


An attacker could send requests where the parameter d is a value in the range, such as "0.0222507385850720119e-00306", to cause the program to hang while processing the request.

This vulnerability exists for Java version 6 Update 23 and earlier versions. It is not present for Java version 6 Update 24 and later.
References
[1] Rick Regan Java Hangs When Converting 2.2250738585072012e-308
[2] Oracle Security Alert for CVE-2010-4476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 400
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [20] CWE ID 400
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [23] CWE ID 400
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [23] CWE ID 400
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [24] CWE ID 400
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.1.1 File Upload Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A1 Injection
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A1 Injection
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A03 Injection
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 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, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[29] 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
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_parse_double
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is repeated. Additionally, attackers can exploit any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.abap.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Microsoft Best Practices for Regular Expressions in the .NET Framework
[2] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] 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
[20] 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
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dart.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is repeated. Additionally, attackers can exploit any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.golang.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.javascript.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. Attackers can use this defect to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1: If the following regular expressions are used in the identified vulnerable code a denial of service could occur:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Example of problematic code relying on a flawed regular expressions:


NSString *regex = @"^(e+)+$";
NSPredicate *pred = [NSPRedicate predicateWithFormat:@"SELF MATCHES %@", regex];
if ([pred evaluateWithObject:mystring]) {
//do something
}


Most regular expression parsers build Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) structures when evaluating regular expressions. The NFA tries all possible matches until a complete match is found. Given the previous example, if the attacker supplies the match string "eeeeZ" then there are 16 internal evaluations that the regex parser must go through to identify a match. If the attacker provides 16 "e"s ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") as the match string then the regex parser must go through 65536 (2^16) evaluations. The attacker may easily consume computing resources by increasing the number of consecutive match characters. There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.objc.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.php.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations which are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.python.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to over-consume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating repeating and alternating overlapping of nested and repeated regex groups. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] 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
[18] 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
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.ruby.denial_of_service_reqular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Example 1:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+

There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] IDS08-J. Sanitize untrusted data included in a regular expression CERT
[3] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] 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
[21] 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
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.scala.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
Untrusted data is passed to the application and used as a regular expression. This can cause the thread to overconsume CPU resources.
Explanation
There is a vulnerability in implementations of regular expression evaluators and related methods that can cause the thread to hang when evaluating regular expressions that contain a grouping expression that is itself repeated. Additionally, any regular expression that contains alternate subexpressions that overlap one another can also be exploited. This defect can be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: If the following regular expressions are used in the identified vulnerable code a denial of service could occur:

(e+)+
([a-zA-Z]+)*
(e|ee)+


Example of problematic code relying on a flawed regular expressions:


let regex : String = "^(e+)+$"
let pred : NSPredicate = NSPRedicate(format:"SELF MATCHES \(regex)")
if (pred.evaluateWithObject(mystring)) {
//do something
}


Most regular expression parsers build Nondeterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) structures when evaluating regular expressions. The NFA tries all possible matches until a complete match is found. Given Example 1, if the attacker supplies the match string "eeeeZ" then there are 16 internal evaluations that the regex parser must go through to identify a match. If the attacker provides 16 "e"s ("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ") as the match string then the regex parser must go through 65536 (2^16) evaluations. The attacker may easily consume computing resources by increasing the number of consecutive match characters. There are no known regular expression implementations that are immune to this vulnerability. All platforms and languages are vulnerable to this attack.
References
[1] Bryan Sullivan Regular Expression Denial of Service Attacks and Defenses
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 185, CWE ID 730
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] 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
[19] 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
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.swift.denial_of_service_regular_expression
Abstract
An attacker could manipulate wildcard routing patterns, effectively encompassing a wide spectrum of URLs or even achieving matches for all URLs, which could potentially result in the initiation of a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.
Explanation
The vulnerability emerges from the integration of wildcard routing patterns via the routes.Ignore method in ASP.NET applications. This method allows external input to define routing behaviors. Specifically, the use of wildcards, such as {*allaspx}, provides attackers with a foothold to manipulate routing actions. The core issue arises when the input controlling these wildcard patterns is not meticulously validated or sanitized.
Malicious actors can leverage this vulnerability to orchestrate a DoS attack. By supplying input that incorporates overly permissive wildcard patterns, an attacker can effectively prompt the routing system to ignore significant categories of URL requests. In the worst-case scenario, the attacker might provide input that encompasses all URLs, resulting in a widespread denial of service where the application becomes inaccessible.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-002386
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] 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
[17] 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
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 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 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002410 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-003320 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.dotnet.denial_of_service_routing
Abstract
An attacker can input specially crafted data to modify or define a program's data structure implementation, which can result in a denial of service through stack exhaustion.
Explanation
User specified data that is directly used by a program to modify or define its data structure implementation might be susceptible to stack exhaustion. For example, if a user can create circular links in a linked data structure that is processed recursively, this can lead to infinite recursion that results in stack exhaustion.

Example 1: The following code snippet demonstrates this vulnerability using Apache Log4j2.

Marker child = MarkerManager.getMarker("child");
Marker parent = MarkerManager.getMarker("parent");

child.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput));
parent.addParents(MarkerManager.getMarker(userInput2));

String toInfinity = child.toString();


This small program allows the user to set the parent marker of child and parent to a user-defined marker. If the user inputs the parent of child to be parent, and the parent of parent to be child, a circular link is created in the Marker data structure. When running the recursive toString method on the data structure containing the circular link, the program will throw a stack overflow exception and crash. This causes a denial of service through stack exhaustion.
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730, CWE ID 674
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] 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
[17] 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, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 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 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stack_exhaustion
Abstract
Appending untrusted data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing array size can cause the JVM to overconsume heap memory space.
Explanation
Appending user-controlled data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing character array size (16) can cause the application to consume large amounts of heap memory while resizing the underlying array to fit user's data. When data is appended to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance, the instance will determine if the backing character array has enough free space to store the data. If the data does not fit, the StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance will create a new array with a capacity of at least double the previous array size, and the old array will remain in the heap until it is garbage collected. Attackers can use this implementation detail to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: User-controlled data is appended to a StringBuilder instance initialized with the default constructor.

...
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
final String lineSeparator = System.lineSeparator();
String[] labels = request.getParameterValues("label");
for (String label : labels) {
sb.append(label).append(lineSeparator);
}
...
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] MSC05-J. Do not exhaust heap space CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] 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
[20] 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
[21] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
desc.dataflow.java.denial_of_service_stringbuilder
Abstract
Appending untrusted data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing array size can cause the JVM to overconsume heap memory space.
Explanation
Appending user-controlled data to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance initialized with the default backing character array size (16) can cause the application to consume large amounts of heap memory while resizing the underlying array to fit the user's data. When data is appended to a StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance, the instance will determine if the backing character array has enough free space to store the data. If the data does not fit, the StringBuilder or StringBuffer instance will create a new array with a capacity of at least double the previous array size, and the old array will remain in the heap until it is garbage collected. Attackers can use this implementation detail to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack.

Example 1: User-controlled data is appended to a StringBuilder instance initialized with the default constructor.

...
val sb = StringBuilder()
val labels = request.getParameterValues("label")
for (label in labels) {
sb.appendln(label)
}
...
References
[1] DOS-1: Beware of activities that may use disproportionate resources Oracle
[2] MSC05-J. Do not exhaust heap space CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094, CCI-001310
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M4 Insufficient Input/Output Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-CODE-4
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] 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
[20] 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
[21] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II, APSC-DV-002530 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.denial_of_service_stringbuilder