1634 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
The program transits information over insecure HTTP connections.
Explanation
Programs deployed outside an enterprise's network infrastructure lose the internal guarantees of data transmission security. An attacker residing on a shared network may be able to snoop unencrypted traffic.
References
[1] SSL Configuration HOW-TO The Apache Foundation
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 5
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000068, CCI-001453, CCI-002418, CCI-002420, CCI-002421, CCI-002422, CCI-002890, CCI-003123
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM, SC
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-17 Remote Access (P1), MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance (P2), SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-17 Remote Access, MA-4 Nonlocal Maintenance, SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.2.5 General Authenticator Requirements (L3), 2.6.3 Look-up Secret Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 6.2.1 Algorithms (L1 L2 L3), 8.1.6 General Data Protection (L3), 8.3.1 Sensitive Private Data (L1 L2 L3), 9.1.1 Communications Security Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 9.2.2 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 14.1.3 Build (L2 L3), 14.4.5 HTTP Security Headers Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M3 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A9 Insecure Communications
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A9 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.10
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.3.1.4, Requirement 6.5.9
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 4.1, Requirement 6.5.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 4.2.1, Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 6.2 - Sensitive Data Protection, Control Objective 7 - Use of Cryptography, Control Objective B.2.5 - Terminal Software Design, Control Objective C.4.1 - Web Software Communications
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260.1 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3250.1 CAT I, APP3250.2 CAT I, APP3250.3 CAT II, APP3250.4 CAT II, APP3260 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000160 CAT II, APSC-DV-000170 CAT II, APSC-DV-001940 CAT II, APSC-DV-001950 CAT II, APSC-DV-002440 CAT I, APSC-DV-002450 CAT II, APSC-DV-002460 CAT II, APSC-DV-002470 CAT II
[52] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Transport Layer Protection (WASC-04)
[53] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Information Leakage
desc.config.java.tomcat_configuration_insecure_transport
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example 1: The following C# code accepts an HTTP request and stores the usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.


usrname = request.Item("usrname");
if (session.Item(ATTR_USR) == null) {
session.Add(ATTR_USR, usrname);
}


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.dotnet.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following Java code accepts an HTTP request and stores the usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.


usrname = request.getParameter("usrname");
if (session.getAttribute(ATTR_USR) != null) {
session.setAttribute(ATTR_USR, usrname);
}


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] FUNDAMENTALS-4: Establish trust boundaries Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.java.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item (URL) from an iOS extension JavaScript script to the iOS Extension code.


var GetURL = function() {};
GetURL.prototype = {
run: function(arguments) {
...
arguments.completionFunction({ "URL": document.location.href });
}
...
};
var ExtensionPreprocessingJS = new GetURL;


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] FUNDAMENTALS-4: Establish trust boundaries Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.javascript.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following Kotlin code accepts an HTTP request and stores the usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.


val usrname: String = request.getParameter("usrname")
if (session.getAttribute(ATTR_USR) != null) {
session.setAttribute(ATTR_USR, usrname)
}


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] FUNDAMENTALS-4: Establish trust boundaries Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.kotlin.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as a line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item from an iOS extension to the host webview.


#import <MobileCoreServices/MobileCoreServices.h>

- (IBAction)done {
...
[self.extensionContext completeRequestReturningItems:@[untrustedItem] completionHandler:nil];
}


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.objc.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.
Example: The following code accepts a usrname cookie and stores its value in the HTTP DB session before it verifies that the user has been authenticated.


...
IF (OWA_COOKIE.get('usrname').num_vals != 0) THEN
usrname := OWA_COOKIE.get('usrname').vals(1);
END IF;
IF (v('ATTR_USR') IS null) THEN
HTMLDB_UTIL.set_session_state('ATTR_USR', usrname);
END IF;
...


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.sql.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following Python code accepts an HTTP request and stores the username parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.


uname = request.GET['username']
request.session['username'] = uname


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.python.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as a line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following code passes an untrusted item from an iOS extension to the host webview.


import MobileCoreServices

@IBAction func done() {
...
self.extensionContext!.completeRequestReturningItems([unstrustedItem], completionHandler: nil)
}


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.swift.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
Commingling trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure encourages programmers to mistakenly trust unvalidated data.
Explanation
A trust boundary can be thought of as line drawn through a program. On one side of the line, data is untrusted. On the other side of the line, data is assumed to be trustworthy. The purpose of validation logic is to allow data to safely cross the trust boundary--to move from untrusted to trusted.

A trust boundary violation occurs when a program blurs the line between what is trusted and what is untrusted. The most common way to make this mistake is to allow trusted and untrusted data to commingle in the same data structure.

Example 1: The following code accepts an HTTP request and stores the usrname parameter in the HTTP session object before checking to ensure that the user has been authenticated.


...
Dim Response As Response
Dim Request As Request
Dim Session As Session
Dim Application As Application
Dim Server As Server
Dim usrname as Variant
Set Response = objContext("Response")
Set Request = objContext("Request")
Set Session = objContext("Session")
Set Application = objContext("Application")

usrname = Request.Form("usrname")
If IsNull(Session("ATTR_USR")) Then
Session("ATTR_USR") = usrname
End If
...


Without well-established and maintained trust boundaries, programmers will inevitably lose track of which pieces of data have been validated and which have not. This confusion eventually allows some data to be used without first being validated.
References
[1] M. Howard, D. LeBlanc Writing Secure Code, Second Edition Microsoft Press
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 501
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001084, CCI-002754
[4] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-3 Security Function Isolation (P1), SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-3 Security Function Isolation, SI-10 Information Input Validation
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M8 Security Decisions Via Untrusted Inputs
[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, MASVS-PLATFORM-1
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002360 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Improper Input Handling (WASC-20)
desc.dataflow.vb.trust_boundary_violation
Abstract
The function returns an unsigned char cast to an int, but the return value is assigned to a char type.
Explanation
When an unsigned character cast to an integer is assign to a signed character, its value might be indistinguishable from EOF.

Example 1: The following code reads a character and compares it to EOF.


char c;

while ( (c = getchar()) != '\n' && c != EOF ) {
...
}


In this case, the return value from getchar() is cast to a char and compared to EOF (an int). Assuming c is a signed 8-bit value and EOF is a 32-bit signed value, then if getchar() returns a character represented by 0xFF, the value of c will be sign extended to 0xFFFFFFFF in the comparison to EOF. Since EOF is typically defined as -1 (0xFFFFFFFF), the loop will terminate erroneously.
References
[1] Distinguish between characters read from a file and EOF or WEOF CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 192
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 10.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.0.5, Rule 7.0.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3550 CAT I
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3550 CAT I
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3550 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3550 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3550 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3550 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3550 CAT I
desc.structural.cpp.type_mismatch_integer_to_character
Abstract
The function is declared to return an unsigned value, but in some cases it attempts to return a negative value.
Explanation
It is dangerous to rely on implicit casts between signed and unsigned numbers because the result can take on an unexpected value and violate weak assumptions made elsewhere in the program.

Example 1: In this example the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned int, amount will be implicitly converted to unsigned.


unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0;
...
if (result == ERROR)
amount = -1;
...
return amount;
}


If the error condition in Example 1 is met, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system which uses 32-bit integers.

Conversion between signed and unsigned values can lead to a variety of errors, but from a security standpoint is most commonly associated with integer overflow and buffer overflow vulnerabilities.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 195
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 10.3, Rule 21.18
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.0.5, Rule 7.0.6
[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 - 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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3550 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3550 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3550 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3550 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3550 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3550 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3550 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
desc.structural.cpp.type_mismatch_negative_to_unsigned
Abstract
An unsigned variable is assigned a signed number.
Explanation
It is dangerous to rely on implicit casts between signed and unsigned numbers because the result can take on an unexpected value and violate weak assumptions made elsewhere in the program.

Example 1: In this example, depending on the return value of accecssmainframe(), the variable amount can hold a negative value when it is returned. Because the function is declared to return an unsigned value, amount will be implicitly cast to an unsigned number.


unsigned int readdata () {
int amount = 0;
...
amount = accessmainframe();
...
return amount;
}


If the return value of accessmainframe() is -1, then the return value of readdata() will be 4,294,967,295 on a system that uses 32-bit integers.

Conversion between signed and unsigned values can lead to a variety of errors, but from a security standpoint is most commonly associated with integer overflow and buffer overflow vulnerabilities.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 195
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002824
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 10.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.5, Rule 7.6, Rule 10.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 5-0-3
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 7.0.5, Rule 7.0.6
[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 - 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 - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3550 CAT I
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3550 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3550 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3550 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3550 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3550 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3550 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002590 CAT I
desc.structural.cpp.type_mismatch_signed_to_unsigned
Abstract
The application initializes a MongoDB client without setting any credentials.
Explanation
Attackers can target unauthenticated MongoDB servers to compromise the data stored in it and depending on the MongoDB version, to get a foothold on your internal network by compromising the server.

Different attacks can be used against a MongoDB server to get arbitrary code execution on its underlying operating system. For example, vulnerabilities existed in the past that allowed attackers to turn a server-side JavaScript injection into remote code execution. When used to store objects, an attacker can also store deserialization payloads for different languages such as Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc. in order to get remote code execution on the deserializing endpoint.

Please note that even if the MongoDB server is not exposed externally, an external attacker may still reach it or the REST API via a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in any application on the same network. For example, MongoDB Servers can be attacked using HTTP or Gopher protocols.

Failure to protect the MongoDB port externally can have a large security impact. For example, an external attacker can use a single remove command to delete the whole data set. Recently, there have been reports of malicious attacks on unsecured instances of MongoDB running openly on the internet. The attacker erased the database and demanded a ransom be paid before restoring it.
References
[1] MongoDB MongoDB Security
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 259
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000196, CCI-001199, CCI-003109
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), SA-4 Acquisition Process (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SA-4 Acquisition Process, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 1.2.6, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.3.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 1.2.6, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.3.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.java.unauthenticated_service_mongodb
Abstract
The application initializes a MongoDB client without setting any credentials.
Explanation
Attackers can target unauthenticated MongoDB servers to compromise the data stored in it and depending on the MongoDB version, to get a foothold on your internal network by compromising the server.

Different attacks can be used against a MongoDB server to get arbitrary code execution on its underlying operating system. For example, vulnerabilities existed in the past that allowed attackers to turn a server-side JavaScript injection into remote code execution. When used to store objects, an attacker can also store deserialization payloads for different languages such as Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc. in order to get remote code execution on the deserializing endpoint.

Please note that even if the MongoDB server is not exposed externally, an external attacker may still reach it or the REST API via a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in any application on the same network. For example, MongoDB Servers can be attacked using HTTP or Gopher protocols.

Failure to protect the MongoDB port externally can have a large security impact. For example, an external attacker can use a single remove command to delete the whole data set. Recently, there have been reports of malicious attacks on unsecured instances of MongoDB running openly on the internet. The attacker erased the database and demanded a ransom be paid before restoring it.
References
[1] MongoDB MongoDB Security
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 259
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000196, CCI-001199, CCI-003109
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), SA-4 Acquisition Process (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[13] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SA-4 Acquisition Process, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile Application Security Verification Standard 2.0 MASVS-STORAGE-1
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 1.2.6, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.3.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 1.2.6, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.3.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[37] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.python.unauthenticated_service_mongodb
Abstract
The application initializes a Redis client without setting any credentials.
Explanation
Unauthenticated Redis servers may be targeted by attackers to get a foothold on your internal network by compromising the server.

Different attacks may be used against a Redis server to get arbitrary code execution on its underlying operating system. For example, an attacker may use Redis commands to write a web shell into the web root. When used to store objects, an attacker may also store deserialization payloads for different languages such as Java, Python, Ruby, PHP, etc. in order to get remote code execution on the deserializating endpoint.

Please note that even if the Redis server is not exposed externally, an external attacker may still reach it via a Server-Side Request Forgery vulnerability in any application on the same network. Redis Servers can be attacker using HTTP or Gopher protocols for example.

Failing to protect the Redis port from the outside can have a big security impact because of the nature of Redis. For instance, a single FLUSHALL command can be used by an external attacker to delete the whole data set. Recently, there have been reports of malicious attacks on unsecured instances of Redis running openly on the internet. The attacker erased the database and demanded a ransom be paid before restoring it.
References
[1] Nicolas Grégoire Trying to hack Redis via HTTP requests
[2] Max Chadwick curl Based SSRF Exploits Against Redis
[3] Redis Redis Security
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 259
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [13] CWE ID 287, [19] CWE ID 798
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [14] CWE ID 287, [20] CWE ID 798
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [14] CWE ID 287, [16] CWE ID 798
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [14] CWE ID 287, [15] CWE ID 798
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [13] CWE ID 287, [18] CWE ID 798
[10] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [14] CWE ID 287, [22] CWE ID 798
[11] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000196, CCI-001199, CCI-003109
[12] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 IA
[13] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Insufficient Data Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 IA-5 Authenticator Management (P1), IA-11 Re-Authentication (P0), SA-4 Acquisition Process (P1), SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest (P1)
[15] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 IA-5 Authenticator Management, SA-4 Acquisition Process, SC-11 Trusted Path, SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API2 Broken Authentication
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 2.7.1 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.2 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.7.3 Out of Band Verifier Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 2.8.4 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.8.5 Single or Multi Factor One Time Verifier Requirements (L2 L3), 2.10.2 Service Authentication Requirements (L2 L3), 3.5.2 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 3.7.1 Defenses Against Session Management Exploits (L1 L2 L3), 6.4.1 Secret Management (L2 L3), 9.2.3 Server Communications Security Requirements (L2 L3), 10.2.3 Malicious Code Search (L3)
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M2 Insecure Data Storage
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A8 Insecure Storage
[21] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A8 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[22] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A7 Insecure Cryptographic Storage
[23] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A6 Sensitive Data Exposure
[24] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A3 Sensitive Data Exposure
[25] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A02 Cryptographic Failures
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.3, Requirement 6.5.8, Requirement 8.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.4
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[31] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[32] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.3.1, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.2.1
[33] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 1.2.6, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.3.1
[34] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 1.2.6, Requirement 6.2.4, Requirement 6.5.3, Requirement 8.3.1
[35] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[36] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[37] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults, Control Objective 5.1 - Authentication and Access Control
[38] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Porous Defenses - CWE ID 259
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3210.1 CAT II, APP3340 CAT I, APP3350 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[50] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[51] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[52] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[53] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[54] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[55] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[56] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[57] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[58] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[59] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[60] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[61] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001520 CAT II, APSC-DV-001530 CAT II, APSC-DV-001740 CAT I, APSC-DV-002330 CAT II, APSC-DV-003270 CAT II, APSC-DV-003280 CAT I
[62] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Insufficient Authentication (WASC-01)
[63] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.controlflow.java.unauthenticated_service_redis
Abstract
Without proper limits on the number of queries or processing time, LLM APIs can become overwhelmed, affecting the stability and availability of the system, potentially resulting in denial-of-service attacks or resource depletion.
Explanation
Unbounded consumption occurs when LLM APIs are not adequately rate-limited, throttled, or otherwise restricted in terms of resource use. This can involve excessive model inference requests, unbounded query sizes, or long-running processes that put undue strain on the server hosting the model, causing delays, outages, or even a complete loss of service.

When LLM APIs are not properly controlled, an attacker can abuse the system by sending high volumes of requests, large data queries, or complex tasks that drain resources. This issue can compound in multi-tenant systems where excessive consumption from one user or process affects others, leading to potential performance bottlenecks or system downtime.
Additionally, a Denial of Wallet (DoW) attack can occur when attackers exploit the cost-per-use model of cloud-based AI services by initiating a high volume of requests, which leads to unsustainable financial burdens on the provider. This can result in financial ruin for the provider, as the cost of processing excessive requests becomes unmanageable.

Example 1: A user submits a series of large text generation requests to an LLM API without any timeout, which allows requests to run without limits. This causes the system to process excessive data and exhausts available server resources.

import openai

# OpenAI GPT model setup
openai.api_key = "your-api-key"

def generate_large_response(prompt):
response = openai.Completion.create(
engine="text-davinci-003",
prompt=prompt,
max_tokens=1000
)
return response

# Submitting unbounded requests with high complexity and token count
prompt = "Generate an extensive article on AI."
response = generate_large_response(prompt)
print(response)
Example 2: A chat model is utilized without configuring a rate_limiter parameter while interacting with the LLM model.


from langchain_anthropic import ChatAnthropic
model = ChatAnthropic(
model_name="claude-3-opus-20240229",
# not using rate_limiter
)


These examples demonstrate how unbounded API calls that lack a timeout can consume significant resources. Without restrictions on the execution time, the system can become overloaded. This can negatively affect the stability of the service and possibly result in resource exhaustion or denial-of-service risks.
References
[1] OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications OWASP
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 770
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [24] CWE ID 400
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption, API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.python.unbounded_consumption_misconfiguration
Abstract
Ignoring a method's return value can cause the program to overlook unexpected states and conditions.
Explanation
It is not uncommon for programmers to misunderstand Read() and related methods that are part of many System.IO classes. Most errors and unusual events in .NET result in an exception being thrown. (This is one of the advantages that .NET has over languages like C: Exceptions make it easier for programmers to think about what can go wrong.) But the stream and reader classes do not consider it to be unusual or exceptional if only a small amount of data becomes available. These classes simply add the small amount of data to the return buffer, and set the return value to the number of bytes or characters read. There is no guarantee that the amount of data returned is equal to the amount of data requested.

This behavior makes it important for programmers to examine the return value from Read() and other IO methods and ensure that they receive the amount of data they expect.
Example 1: The following code loops through a set of users, reading a private data file for each user. The programmer assumes that the files are always 1 kilobyte in size and therefore ignores the return value from Read(). If an attacker can create a smaller file, the program will recycle the remainder of the data from the previous user and handle it as though it belongs to the attacker.


char[] byteArray = new char[1024];
for (IEnumerator i=users.GetEnumerator(); i.MoveNext() ;i.Current()) {
string userName = (string) i.Current();
string pFileName = PFILE_ROOT + "/" + userName;
StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(pFileName);
sr.Read(byteArray,0,1024);//the file is always 1k bytes
sr.Close();
processPFile(userName, byteArray);
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 252, CWE ID 754
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001314, CCI-003272
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 17.7
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 17.7
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-7
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.1.2
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SI-11 Error Handling
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[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 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-104
desc.semantic.dotnet.unchecked_return_value
Abstract
Ignoring a method's return value can cause the program to overlook unexpected states and conditions.
Explanation
Just about every serious attack on a software system begins with the violation of a programmer's assumptions. After the attack, the programmer's assumptions seem flimsy and poorly founded, but before an attack many programmers would defend their assumptions well past the end of their lunch break.

Two dubious assumptions that are easy to spot in code are "this function call can never fail" and "it doesn't matter if this function call fails". When a programmer ignores the return value from a function, they implicitly state that they are operating under one of these assumptions.
Example 1: Consider the following code:


char buf[10], cp_buf[10];
fgets(buf, 10, stdin);
strcpy(cp_buf, buf);


The programmer expects that when fgets() returns, buf will contain a null-terminated string of length 9 or less. But if an I/O error occurs, fgets() will not null-terminate buf. Furthermore, if the end of the file is reached before any characters are read, fgets() returns without writing anything to buf. In both of these situations, fgets() signals that something unusual has happened by returning NULL, but in this code, the warning will not be noticed. The lack of a null-terminator in buf can result in a buffer overflow in the subsequent call to strcpy().
References
[1] J. Viega, G. McGraw Building Secure Software Addison-Wesley
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 252, CWE ID 754
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001314, CCI-003272
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 17.7
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 17.7
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-7
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SI-11 Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-104
desc.semantic.cpp.unchecked_return_value
Abstract
Ignoring a method's return value can cause the program to overlook unexpected states and conditions.
Explanation
It is not uncommon for Java programmers to misunderstand read() and related methods that are part of many java.io classes. Most errors and unusual events in Java result in an exception being thrown. (This is one of the advantages that Java has over languages like C: Exceptions make it easier for programmers to think about what can go wrong.) But the stream and reader classes do not consider it unusual or exceptional if only a small amount of data becomes available. These classes simply add the small amount of data to the return buffer, and set the return value to the number of bytes or characters read. There is no guarantee that the amount of data returned is equal to the amount of data requested.

This behavior makes it important for programmers to examine the return value from read() and other IO methods to ensure that they receive the amount of data they expect.

Example 1: The following code loops through a set of users, reading a private data file for each user. The programmer assumes that the files are always exactly 1 kilobyte in size and therefore ignores the return value from read(). If an attacker can create a smaller file, the program will recycle the remainder of the data from the previous user and handle it as though it belongs to the attacker.


FileInputStream fis;
byte[] byteArray = new byte[1024];
for (Iterator i=users.iterator(); i.hasNext();) {
String userName = (String) i.next();
String pFileName = PFILE_ROOT + "/" + userName;
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(pFileName);
fis.read(byteArray); // the file is always 1k bytes
fis.close();
processPFile(userName, byteArray);
}
References
[1] EXP00-J. Do not ignore values returned by methods CERT
[2] FIO02-J. Detect and handle file-related errors CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 252, CWE ID 754
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001314, CCI-003272
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 17.7
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 17.7
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-7
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SI-11 Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-104
desc.semantic.java.unchecked_return_value
Abstract
Ignoring a method's return value can cause the program to overlook unexpected states and conditions.
Explanation

It is important for programmers to examine return values to ensure that the expected state is returned from the method call.

Example 1: The following code loops through a set of users, reading a private data file for each user. The programmer assumes that the files are always exactly 1 kilobyte in size and therefore ignores the return value from read(). If an attacker can create a smaller file, the program will recycle the remainder of the data from the previous user and handle it as though it belongs to the attacker.


var fis: FileInputStream
val byteArray = ByteArray(1023)
val i: Iterator<*> = users.iterator()
while (i.hasNext()) {
val userName = i.next() as String
val pFileName: String = PFILE_ROOT.toString() + "/" + userName
val fis = FileInputStream(pFileName)
fis.read(byteArray) // the file is always 0k bytes
fis.close()
processPFile(userName, byteArray)
}
References
[1] EXP00-J. Do not ignore values returned by methods CERT
[2] FIO02-J. Detect and handle file-related errors CERT
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 252, CWE ID 754
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001314, CCI-003272
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 17.7
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 17.7
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-7
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.1.2
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SI-11 Error Handling
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[26] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[50] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-104
desc.semantic.kotlin.unchecked_return_value
Abstract
A function does not check the return value of a message call.
Explanation
When invoking another contract, always check the return value of the message call to properly handle whether or not the call was successful. Failure to do so can lead to unintended logic behavior if the call fails or if it throws an exception that is not correctly handled.

Example 1: The following code does not check the returned value of a call.


function callnotchecked(address callee) public {
callee.call();
}
References
[1] Enterprise Ethereum Alliance Check External Calls Return
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 252, CWE ID 754
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001314, CCI-003272
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 17.7
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 17.7
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 0-1-7
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 0.1.2
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools (P2), SI-11 Error Handling (P2)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SA-15 Development Process and Standards and Tools, SI-11 Error Handling
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 3.6 - Sensitive Data Retention, Control Objective B.3.2 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[25] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 754
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002580 CAT II, APSC-DV-003235 CAT II
[49] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-104
desc.structural.solidity.swc104
Abstract
The behavior of this function is undefined unless its control parameter is set to a specific value.
Explanation
The Linux Standard Base Specification 2.0.1 for libc places constraints on the arguments to some internal functions [1]. If the constraints are not met, the behavior of the functions is not defined.


The value 1 must be passed to the first parameter (the version number) of the following file system function:


__xmknod


The value 2 must be passed to the third parameter (the group argument) of the following wide character string functions:


__wcstod_internal
__wcstof_internal
_wcstol_internal
__wcstold_internal
__wcstoul_internal


The value 3 must be passed as the first parameter (the version number) of the following file system functions:


__xstat
__lxstat
__fxstat
__xstat64
__lxstat64
__fxstat64

References
[1] The Linux Standard Base Specification 2.0.1, Interfaces Definitions for libc.
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 475
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 1.3
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 1.3
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 4.1.3
desc.semantic.cpp.undefined_behavior
Abstract
The application uses an assignment that dereferences a system FILE object.
Explanation
Depending on the specific C compiler in use, the address of a system FILE object might be significant to the use of the FILE object as a stream. Using a copy of the FILE object without the associated address can lead to undefined behavior resulting in potential system information leakage, a system crash, or the ability for a malicious actor to read or edit files at their discretion.

Example 1: The following code shows a system FILE object that is dereferenced and copied by value.


FILE *sysfile = fopen(test.file, "w+");
FILE insecureFile = *sysfile;


Because sysfile is dereferenced in the assignment of insecureFile, use of insecureFile can result in a wide variety of problems.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 706
[2] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.5
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.5
desc.structural.cpp.undefined_behavior_file_pointer_dereference
Abstract
The application uses a file operation on a closed file pointer.
Explanation
Performing file operations on a system FILE object after its associated stream is closed results in undefined behavior. Depending on the specific C compiler in use, the file operation can cause a system crash or even potentially result in modification or reading of the same or different file.

Example 1: The following code shows an attempt to read a system FILE object after the corresponding stream is closed.


FILE *sysfile = fopen(test.file, "r+");
res = fclose(sysfile);
if(res == 0){
printf("%c", getc(sysfile));
}


Because the getc() function runs after the file stream for sysfile is closed, getc() results in undefined behavior and can cause a system crash or potential modification or reading of the same or different file.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 910
[2] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.6
[3] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.6
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
desc.controlflow.cpp.undefined_behavior_file_pointer_use_after_close
Abstract
Explicitly deleting a managed pointer will cause the program to crash or otherwise misbehave.
Explanation
Deleting a managed pointer will cause the program to crash or otherwise do the wrong thing when, later on, the pointer management code assumes that the pointer is still valid. The following example illustrates the error.


std::auto_ptr<foo> p(new foo);
foo* rawFoo = p.get();
delete rawFoo;


The only exception to this rule comes when a managed pointer class supports a "detach" operation allowing the programmer to take control of memory management for the given pointer. If the program detaches the pointer from the management class before calling delete, the management class knows not to use the pointer any further.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 758
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.redundant_delete
Abstract
The program can potentially use a variable before it has been initialized.
Explanation
In .Net, static variables are initialized to its default values, however usage of those variables without initializing may lead to business logic based issues or may be used to execute a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. Programs should never use the default value of a variable.

It is not uncommon for programmers to use an uninitialized variable in code that handles errors or other rare and exceptional circumstances. Uninitialized variable warnings can sometimes indicate the presence of a typographic error in the code.

Example 1: The following code will get compiled by the .Net compiler without any error. However, the following statement int a = (Int32)i + (Int32)j; throws an unhandled exception and crashes the application at runtime.

class Program
{
static int? i = j;
static int? j;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
j = 100;
int a = (Int32)i + (Int32)j;

Console.WriteLine(i);
Console.WriteLine(j);
Console.WriteLine(a);
}
}


Most uninitialized variable issues result in general software reliability problems, but if attackers can intentionally trigger the use of an uninitialized variable, they might be able to launch a denial of service attack by crashing the program.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 457, CWE ID 824
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 9.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 9.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 8-5-1
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 11.6.2
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 665
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-109
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.dotnet.uninitialized_variable
Abstract
The program might use a variable before it has been initialized.
Explanation
Stack variables in C and C++ are not initialized by default. Their initial values are determined by whatever happens to be in their location on the stack at the time the function is invoked. Programs should never use the value of an uninitialized variable.

It is not uncommon for programmers to use an uninitialized variable in code that handles errors or other rare and exceptional circumstances. Uninitialized variable warnings can sometimes indicate the presence of a typographic error in the code.

Example 1: The following switch statement is intended to set values for the variables aN and bN, but in the default case, the programmer accidentally set the value of aN twice.


switch (ctl) {
case -1:
aN = 0; bN = 0;
break;
case 0:
aN = i; bN = -i;
break;
case 1:
aN = i + NEXT_SZ; bN = i - NEXT_SZ;
break;
default:
aN = -1; aN = -1;
break;
}



Most uninitialized variables result in general software reliability issues, but if attackers can intentionally trigger the use of an uninitialized variable, they might be able to launch a denial of service attack by crashing the program. Under the right circumstances, an attacker might be able to control the value of an uninitialized variable by affecting the values on the stack prior to the function invocation.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 457, CWE ID 824
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 9.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 9.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 8-5-1
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 11.6.2
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 665
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-109
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.uninitialized_variable
Abstract
A local storage variable is not initialized.
Explanation
Leaving local storage variables uninitialized can leave them pointing to unexpected storage locations, leading to unintended behavior and sometimes vulnerabilities.

Example 1: The following code declares the variable game without initializing it.


struct Game {
address player;
}

function play(uint256 number) payable public {

Game game;
game.player = msg.sender;

}
References
[1] Enterprise Ethereum Alliance Explicit Storage
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 457, CWE ID 824
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020, [20] CWE ID 119
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 9.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 9.1
[7] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2008 Rule 8-5-1
[8] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 11.6.2
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[10] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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 - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 665
[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
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-109
[38] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[39] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.solidity.swc109
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.
Explanation
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.

Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following method never closes the file handle it opens. The Finalize() method for StreamReader eventually calls Close(), but there is no guarantee as to how long it will take before the Finalize() method is invoked. In fact, there is no guarantee that Finalize() will ever be invoked. In a busy environment, this can result in the VM using up all of its available file handles.


private void processFile(string fName) {
StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(fName);
string line;
while ((line = sr.ReadLine()) != null)
processLine(line);
}
Example 2: Under normal conditions the following code executes a database query, processes the results returned by the database, and closes the allocated SqlConnection object. But if an exception occurs while executing the SQL or processing the results, the SqlConnection object will not be closed. If this happens often enough, the database will run out of available cursors and not be able to execute any more SQL queries.


...
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString);
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(queryString);
cmd.Connection = conn;
conn.Open();
SqlDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader();
HarvestResults(rdr);
conn.Connection.Close();
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.dotnet.unreleased_resource
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.
Explanation
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.

Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following function does not close the file handle it opens if an error occurs. If the process is long-lived, the process can run out of file handles.


int decodeFile(char* fName)
{
char buf[BUF_SZ];
FILE* f = fopen(fName, "r");

if (!f) {
printf("cannot open %s\n", fName);
return DECODE_FAIL;
} else {
while (fgets(buf, BUF_SZ, f)) {
if (!checkChecksum(buf)) {
return DECODE_FAIL;
} else {
decodeBlock(buf);
}
}
}
fclose(f);
return DECODE_SUCCESS;
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.cpp.unreleased_resource
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.
Explanation
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.

Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion about which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker might launch a denial of service by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following program does not close the file handle it opens if an error occurs. If the process is long-lived, the process can run out of file handles.


CALL "CBL_CREATE_FILE"
USING filename
access-mode
deny-mode
device
file-handle
END-CALL

IF return-code NOT = 0
DISPLAY "Error!"
GOBACK
ELSE
PERFORM write-data
IF ws-status-code NOT = 0
DISPLAY "Error!"
GOBACK
ELSE
DISPLAY "Success!"
END-IF
END-IF

CALL "CBL_CLOSE_FILE"
USING file-handle
END-CALL

GOBACK
.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.cobol.unreleased_resource
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.
Explanation

Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker might be able to launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following method never closes the socket it opens. The New() function establishes a new connection to the system log daemon. It is part of the log.syslog package. Each write to the returned writer sends a log message with the given priority (a combination of the syslog facility and severity) and prefix tag. In a busy environment, this can result in the system using up all of its sockets.


func TestNew() {

s, err := New(syslog.LOG_INFO|syslog.LOG_USER, "the_tag")
if err != nil {
if err.Error() == "Unix syslog delivery error" {
fmt.Println("skipping: syslogd not running")
}
fmt.Println("New() failed: %s", err)
}
}
Example 2: In this example, the Dial() method of the net/smtp package returns a new client connected to an SMTP server at localhost. The connection resources are allocated but are never released by calling the Close() function.


func testDial() {
client, _ := smtp.Dial("127.0.0.1")
client.Hello("")
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.golang.unreleased_resource
Abstract
A function fails to release a system resource.
Explanation
The code fails to release a system resource.


Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker can potentially launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: In the following example, the resource created by Arena.ofConfined() is not closed.

...
Arena offHeap = Arena.ofConfined()
MemorySegment str = offHeap.allocateUtf8String("data");
...
//offHeap is never closed
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.java.unreleased_resource_ffm
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.
Explanation
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.

Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following function does not close the file handle it opens. If the process is long-lived, it may run out of file handles.


BEGIN
...
F1 := UTL_FILE.FOPEN('user_dir','u12345.tmp','R',256);
UTL_FILE.GET_LINE(F1,V1,32767);
...
END;
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2012 Rule 22.1
[5] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C Guidelines 2023 Rule 22.1
[6] Standards Mapping - Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (MISRA) C++ Guidelines 2023 Rule 6.8.1
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.sql.unreleased_resource
Abstract
An Android activity fails to release the Camera instance in its onPause(), onStop(), or onDestroy() event handlers.
Explanation
The Android activity allocates a Camera instance that is not released in onPause(), onStop(), or onDestroy() callback. The Android OS invokes these callbacks whenever it needs to send the current activity to the background, or when it needs to temporarily destroy the activity when system resources are low. By failing to release the Camera object properly, the activity prevents other applications (or even future instances of the same application) from accessing the camera. Furthermore, maintaining possession of the Camera instance while the activity is paused can negatively impact the user's experience by unnecessarily draining the battery.

Example 1: The following code describes an Android activity that does not override the base onPause() method, which should be used to release the Camera object, nor does it properly release it during its shutdown sequence.


public class UnreleasedCameraActivity extends Activity {
private Camera cam;

@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle state) {
...
}

@Override
public void onRestart() {
...
}

@Override
public void onStop() {
cam.stopPreview();
}
}
References
[1] Camera, Android Developers
[2] FIO04-J. Release resources when they are no longer needed CERT
[3] DOS-2: Release resources in all cases Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.java.unreleased_resource_android_camera
Abstract
An Android activity fails to release the MediaRecorder, MediaPlayer, or AudioRecord object in its onPause(), onStop(), or onDestroy() event handlers.
Explanation
The Android activity allocates a media object that is not released in onPause(), onStop(), or onDestroy() callback. The Android OS invokes these callbacks whenever it needs to send the current activity to the background, or when it needs to temporarily destroy the activity when system resources are low. By failing to release the media object properly, the activity causes subsequent accesses to Android's media hardware (by other applications or even the same application) to fall back to the software implementations, or even fail altogether. Leaving too many unreleased media instances open can lead Android to throw exceptions, effectively causing a denial of service. Furthermore, maintaining possession of the media instance while the activity is paused can negatively impact the user's experience by unnecessarily draining the battery.

Example 1: The following code describes an Android activity that does not override the base onPause() method, which should be used to release the media object, nor does it properly release it during its shutdown sequence.


public class UnreleasedMediaActivity extends Activity {
private MediaPlayer mp;

@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle state) {
...
}

@Override
public void onRestart() {
...
}

@Override
public void onStop() {
mp.stop();
}
}
References
[1] Media Player, Android Developers
[2] Audio Capture, Android Developers
[3] FIO04-J. Release resources when they are no longer needed CERT
[4] DOS-2: Release resources in all cases Oracle
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 772
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[7] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[9] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[21] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[46] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.java.unreleased_resource_android_media
Abstract
An Android activity fails to release the Android database handler in its onPause(), onStop(), or onDestroy() event handlers.
Explanation
The Android activity maintains an Android SQLite database handler that is not closed in onPause(), onStop(), or onDestroy() callback. The Android OS invokes these callbacks whenever it needs to send the current activity to the background, or when it needs to temporarily destroy the activity when system resources are low. By failing to close the database properly, the activity can potentially exhaust the device of available cursors if the activity is constantly restarted. In addition, depending on the implementation, the Android operating system can also throws DatabaseObjectNotClosedException, which crashes the application if the exception is not caught.

Example 1: The following code describes an Android activity that caches user data and writes the data to disk when the activity is stopped. Note that does not override the base onPause(), which should be used to release the database object, nor does it properly release it during its shutdown sequence.


public class MyDBHelper extends SQLiteOpenHelper {
...
}

public class UnreleasedDBActivity extends Activity {
private myDBHelper dbHelper;
private SQLiteDatabase db;

@Override
public void onCreate(Bundle state) {
...
db = dbHelper.getWritableDatabase();
...
}

@Override
public void onRestart() {
...
}

@Override
public void onStop() {
db.insert(cached_data); // flush cached data
}
}
References
[1] Data Storage, Android Developers
[2] FIO04-J. Release resources when they are no longer needed CERT
[3] DOS-2: Release resources in all cases Oracle
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[6] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 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.structural.java.unreleased_resource_android_sqlite_database
Abstract
The cursor can potentially be used by a lower-privileged user.
Explanation
The cursor can potentially be used to access unauthorized information.
Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

In SQL, cursors have the privileges associated with the code that created them. If a less privileged user can capture the leaked cursor, it can be used to view unauthorized records.

In addition, most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems, but if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The PWD_COMPARE procedure can be used by code that does not have access to sys.dba_users to check a user's password.


CREATE or REPLACE procedure PWD_COMPARE(p_user VARCHAR, p_pwd VARCHAR)
AUTHID DEFINED
IS
cursor INTEGER;
...
BEGIN
IF p_user != 'SYS' THEN
cursor := DBMS_SQL.OPEN_CURSOR;
DBMS_SQL.PARSE(cursor, 'SELECT password FROM SYS.DBA_USERS WHERE username = :u', DBMS_SQL.NATIVE);
DBMS_SQL.BIND_VARIABLE(cursor, ':u', p_user);
...
END IF;
END PWD_COMPARE;


If the attacker may cause an exception, they can capture the cursor and gain access to unauthorized information, such as the sys password. One way to cause an exception is to pass an overly long argument to p_user. After the attacker knows that the cursor has leaked, they just have to guess the cursor and assign new bind variables.


DECLARE
x VARCHAR(32000);
i INTEGER;
j INTEGER;
r INTEGER;
password VARCHAR2(30);
BEGIN
FOR i IN 1..10000 LOOP
x:='b' || x;
END LOOP;
SYS.PWD_COMPARE(x,'password');
EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERs THEN
FOR j IN 1..10000
DBMS_SQL.BIND_VARIABLE(j, ':u', 'SYS');
DBMS_SQL.DEFINE_COLUMN(j, 1, password, 30);
r := DBMS_SQL.EXECUTE(j);
IF DBMS_SQL.FETCH_ROWS(j) > 0 THEN
DBMS_SQL.COLUMN_VALUE(j, 1, password);
EXIT;
END IF;
END LOOP;
...
END;
References
[1] David Litchfield Dangling Cursor Snarfing: A New Class of Attack in Oracle
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[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
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.sql.unreleased_resource_cursor_snarfing
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a database resource.
Explanation
Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, they can launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following code executes a database query but does not release the statement nor connection resources.

DATA: result TYPE demo_update,
request TYPE REF TO IF_HTTP_REQUEST,
obj TYPE REF TO CL_SQL_CONNECTION.

TRY.
...
obj = cl_sql_connection=>get_connection( `R/3*my_conn`).
FINAL(sql) = NEW cl_sql_prepared_statement(
statement = `INSERT INTO demo_update VALUES( ?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ? )`).

CATCH cx_sql_exception INTO FINAL(exc).
...
ENDTRY.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.abap.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.
Explanation
The program can potentially fail to release a system resource.

Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: Under normal conditions the following code executes a database query, processes the results returned by the database, and closes the allocated SqlConnection object. But if an exception occurs while executing the SQL or processing the results, the SqlConnection object will not be closed. If this happens often enough, the database will run out of available cursors and not be able to execute any more SQL queries.


...
SqlConnection conn = new SqlConnection(connString);
SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand(queryString);
cmd.Connection = conn;
conn.Open();
SqlDataReader rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader();
HarvestResults(rdr);
conn.Connection.Close();
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a database resource.
Explanation
Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following code executes a database query but does not release the statement or connection resources.

- void insertUser:(NSString *)name {
...
sqlite3_stmt *insertStatement = nil;
NSString *insertSQL = [NSString stringWithFormat:@INSERT INTO users (name, age) VALUES (?, ?)];
const char *insert_stmt = [insertSQL UTF8String];
...
if ((result = sqlite3_prepare_v2(database, insert_stmt,-1, &insertStatement, NULL)) != SQLITE_OK) {
MyLog(@"%s: sqlite3_prepare error: %s (%d)", __FUNCTION__, sqlite3_errmsg(database), result);
return;
}
if ((result = sqlite3_step(insertStatement)) != SQLITE_DONE) {
MyLog(@"%s: step error: %s (%d)", __FUNCTION__, sqlite3_errmsg(database), result);
return;
}
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.cpp.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a database resource.
Explanation
Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: Under normal conditions, the following code executes a database query, processes the results returned by the database, and closes the allocated statement object. But if an exception occurs while executing the SQL or processing the results, the statement object will not be closed. If this happens often enough, the database will run out of available cursors and not be able to execute any more SQL queries.

Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery(CXN_SQL);
harvestResults(rs);
stmt.close();
References
[1] FIO04-J. Release resources when they are no longer needed CERT
[2] DOS-2: Release resources in all cases Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[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
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.controlflow.java.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
The program can potentially fail to release a database resource.
Explanation
Resource leaks have at least two common causes:

- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances.

- Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for releasing the resource.

Most unreleased resource issues result in general software reliability problems. However, if an attacker can intentionally trigger a resource leak, the attacker may be able to launch a denial of service attack by depleting the resource pool.

Example 1: The following code executes a database query but does not release the statement nor connection resources.

func insertUser(name:String, age:int) {
let dbPath = URL(fileURLWithPath: Bundle.main.resourcePath ?? "").appendingPathComponent("test.sqlite").absoluteString

var db: OpaquePointer?
var stmt: OpaquePointer?

if sqlite3_open(dbPath, &db) != SQLITE_OK {
print("Error opening articles database.")
return
}

let queryString = "INSERT INTO users (name, age) VALUES (?,?)"

if sqlite3_prepare(db, queryString, -1, &stmt, nil) != SQLITE_OK{
let errmsg = String(cString: sqlite3_errmsg(db)!)
log("error preparing insert: \(errmsg)")
return
}

if sqlite3_bind_text(stmt, 1, name, -1, nil) != SQLITE_OK{
let errmsg = String(cString: sqlite3_errmsg(db)!)
log("failure binding name: \(errmsg)")
return
}

if sqlite3_bind_int(stmt, 2, age) != SQLITE_OK{
let errmsg = String(cString: sqlite3_errmsg(db)!)
log("failure binding name: \(errmsg)")
return
}

if sqlite3_step(stmt) != SQLITE_DONE {
let errmsg = String(cString: sqlite3_errmsg(db)!)
log("failure inserting user: \(errmsg)")
return
}
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 619, CWE ID 772
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [21] CWE ID 772
[3] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1), SC-24 Fail in Known State (P1)
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection, SC-24 Fail in Known State
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[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, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[17] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[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-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002310 CAT I, APSC-DV-002400 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.swift.unreleased_resource_database