Reino: Code Quality

Una mala calidad del código lleva a un comportamiento no predecible. Desde la perspectiva de un usuario, muchas veces también supone una usabilidad limitada. Pero para un atacante es una oportunidad para atacar al sistema de formas insospechadas.

4 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
Abstract
Las funciones con implementaciones incoherentes en varios sistemas operativos y versiones de los mismos pueden provocar problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
El comportamiento de las funciones de esta categoría varía en función del sistema operativo y, a veces, entre versiones de los mismos. Entre las diferencias de implementación, se incluyen:

- Ligeras diferencias en la forma en que se interpretan los comandos, lo que da lugar a resultados incoherentes.

- Algunas implementaciones de la función conllevan considerables riesgos de seguridad.

- Es posible que la función no se defina en todas las plataformas.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.portability_flaw
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
var file:File = new File(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.actionscript.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
FileStream f = File.Create(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.dotnet.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
File file = new File(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.java.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
El uso de separadores de archivos codificados provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Cada sistema operativo utiliza caracteres diferentes como separadores de archivos. Por ejemplo, los sistemas Microsoft Windows utilizan "\", mientras que los sistemas UNIX utilizan "/". Cuando las aplicaciones tienen que ejecutarse en distintas plataformas, el uso de separadores de archivos codificados puede provocar la ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de la aplicación y, posiblemente, una denegación de servicio.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código utiliza un separador de archivos codificados para abrir un archivo:


...
os.open(directoryName + "\\" + fileName);
...
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[6] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.dataflow.python.portability_flaw_file_separator
Abstract
Puede producirse problemas de portabilidad inesperados si no es especifica la configuración regional.
Explanation
Es necesario especificar una configuración regional concreta al comparar datos que depende de ella.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente ejemplo trata de llevar a cabo la validación para determinar si la entrada del usuario incluye una etiqueta<script>.

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


El problema con el Example 1 es que java.lang.String.toUpperCase(), cuando se usa sin configuración regional, emplea las reglas de la configuración regional predeterminada. El hecho de utilizar la configuración regional turca "title".toUpperCase() devuelve "T\u0130TLE", donde "\u0130" es el carácter "I LATINA MAYÚSCULA CON PUNTO". Esto puede dar lugar a resultados inesperados, como en el Example 1, en el que se impide que la validación capture la palabra "script", lo que puede dar lugar a una potencial vulnerabilidad de scripts entre sitios.
References
[1] STR02-J. Specify an appropriate locale when comparing locale-dependent data CERT
[2] String (JavaDoc) Oracle
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.controlflow.java.portability_flaw_locale_dependent_comparison
Abstract
El uso de SQL nativo provoca problemas de portabilidad.
Explanation
Los sistemas SAP están diseñados para ser independientes de la plataforma. Open SQL, el dialecto SQL portátil de SAP, hace que las aplicaciones sean independientes de un controlador JDBC de un determinado proveedor de base de datos. El uso de Open SQL elimina las complejidades de la base de datos subyacente y proporciona una interfaz común a programas de aplicaciones para todas las operaciones de base de datos. Sin embargo, SQL nativo es específico de la base de datos subyacente y, por lo tanto, su uso en otras plataformas podría provocar a una ejecución incorrecta de la lógica de las aplicaciones y conducir potencialmente a una denegación de servicio.
Ejemplo 1: el siguiente código usa SQL nativo:


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

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