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.

89 elementos encontrados
Debilidades
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
Abstract
La asignación de un campo estático a un nuevo objeto llama al constructor incluso si depende de la inicialización de otras variables, lo que puede llevar a que los objetos se inicialicen incorrectamente.
Explanation
Cuando se inicializa una clase Java, llama a los inicializadores por campos estáticos declarados en la clase antes que al constructor de la clase. Esto significa que se llamará antes a un constructor asignado a esto que a otro código y, si dicho constructor depende de otros campos o variables que se están inicializando, los objetos se inicializarían parcialmente o con valores incorrectos.

Ejemplo 1: la siguiente clase declara un campo estático y lo asigna a un objeto nuevo.


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

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


En el Example 1, el desarrollador espera que box.area sea un entero aleatorio que resulta ser múltiplo de 10, ya que width es igual a 10. Sin embargo, en realidad, siempre tuvo un valor codificado de 0. Se inicializan primero los campos estáticos finales declarados con una constante de tiempo de compilación y, a continuación, se ejecutan en orden. Esto significa que, puesto que height no es una constante de tiempo de compilación, se declara después de la declaración debox y, por consiguiente, se llama al constructor antes de que se inicialice el campo height.

Ejemplo 2: las siguientes clases declaran campos estáticos interdependientes.


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

This example is perhaps easier to identify, but would be dependent on which class is loaded first by the JVM. In this example Foo.f could be either -1 or 0, and Bar.b could be either 0 or 1.
References
[1] DCL00-J. Prevent class initialization cycles CERT
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 362, CWE ID 367
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [22] CWE ID 362
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [21] CWE ID 362
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-000366, CCI-003178
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 CM-6 Configuration Settings (P1), SA-11 Developer Security Testing and Evaluation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 CM-6 Configuration Settings, SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 1.11.2 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L2 L3), 1.11.3 Business Logic Architectural Requirements (L3), 11.1.6 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A04 Insecure Design
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.3 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[20] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[21] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2010 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 362
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3630.1 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3630.1 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3630.1 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3630.1 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3630.1 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3630.1 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3630.1 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-001995 CAT II
desc.structural.java.race_condition_class_initialization_cycle
Abstract
El programa podría desreferenciar un puntero nulo, lo que puede ocasionar un error de segmentación.
Explanation
Las excepciones del puntero nulo normalmente se producen cuando una o varias de las hipótesis del programador se infringen. Hay al menos tres enfoques para este problema: comprobar después de desreferenciar, desreferenciar después de comprobar y desreferenciar después de almacenar. Se produce un error de desreferencia tras la comprobación cuando un programa desreferencia un puntero que puede ser null antes de comprobar si es null o no. Los errores de desreferencia tras la comprobación se producen cuando un programa realiza una comprobación explícita de null y procede a desreferenciar el puntero cuando se sabe que es null. Los errores de este tipo son normalmente el resultado de errores de escritura o descuidos del programador. Los errores de desreferencia tras el almacenamiento se producen cuando un programa establece de forma explícita un puntero en null y luego lo desreferencia. Con frecuencia, el error es el resultado de que un programador inicialice una variable en null cuando se declara.

La mayoría de los problemas del puntero nulo derivan en problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la desreferencia del puntero nulo, también puede ser capaz de usar la excepción resultante para eludir la lógica de seguridad y planear un ataque por denegación de servicio o hacer que la aplicación revele la información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: En el código siguiente, el programador confirma que la variable foo es null y por eso lo desreferencia erróneamente. Si foo es null cuando se comprueba en la instrucción if, se produce una desreferencia null, lo que provoca una excepción de puntero nulo.


if (foo is null) {
foo.SetBar(val);
...
}
Ejemplo 2: En el código siguiente, el programador presupone que la variable foo no es null y confirma esta suposición eliminando la referencia del objeto. Sin embargo, este contradice posteriormente esta suposición al comprobar si foo es null. Si foo puede ser null al comprobarlo en relación con la instrucción if, también puede ser null cuando se elimina su referencia, lo que puede provocar una excepción de puntero nulo. O bien la desreferencia no es segura o la comprobación posterior es innecesaria.


foo.SetBar(val);
...
if (foo is not null) {
...
}
Ejemplo 3: En el código siguiente, el programador establece explícitamente la variable foo en null. A continuación, el programador desreferencia foo antes de comprobar si en el objeto hay un valor null.


Foo foo = null;
...
foo.SetBar(val);
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - 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 - 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.dotnet.redundant_null_check
Abstract
El programa podría desreferenciar un puntero nulo y, por lo tanto, ocasionar un error de segmentación.
Explanation
Las excepciones del puntero nulo normalmente se producen cuando una o varias de las hipótesis del programador se infringen. Hay al menos tres enfoques para este problema: comprobar después de desreferenciar, desreferenciar después de comprobar y desreferenciar después de almacenar. Se produce un error de desreferencia tras la comprobación cuando un programa desreferencia un puntero que puede ser null antes de comprobar si es null o no. Los errores de desreferencia tras la comprobación se producen cuando un programa realiza una comprobación explícita de null y procede a desreferenciar el puntero cuando se sabe que es null. Los errores de este tipo son normalmente el resultado de errores de escritura o descuidos del programador. Los errores de desreferencia tras el almacenamiento se producen cuando un programa establece de forma explícita un puntero en null y luego lo desreferencia. Con frecuencia, el error es el resultado de que un programador inicialice una variable en null cuando se declara.

La mayoría de los problemas del puntero nulo derivan en problemas generales de confiabilidad de software. Sin embargo, si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente la desreferencia del puntero nulo, también puede ser capaz de usar la excepción resultante para eludir la lógica de seguridad y planear un ataque por denegación de servicio o hacer que la aplicación revele la información de depuración, la cual será valiosa para la planificación de ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: en el código siguiente, el programador supone que la variable ptr no es NULL. Esta suposición se hace explícita cuando el programador desreferencia el puntero. Esta suposición luego queda contradicha cuando el programador contrasta ptr y NULL. Si ptr puede ser NULL al comprobarla en la instrucción if, entonces también puede ser NULL cuando se desreferencia y podría ocasionar un error de segmentación.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
Ejemplo 2: En el código siguiente, el programador confirma que la variable ptr es NULL y por eso lo desreferencia erróneamente. Si ptr es NULL cuando se comprueba en la instrucción if, entonces se produce una desreferencia de null que provocará un error de segmentación.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
Ejemplo 3: En el código siguiente, el programador olvida que la cadena '\0' es en realidad 0 o NULL; por lo tanto, puede desreferenciar un puntero nulo y provocar un fallo de segmentación.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
Ejemplo 4: En el código siguiente, el programador establece explícitamente la variable ptr en NULL. A continuación, el programador desreferencia ptr antes de comprobar si en el objeto hay un valor null.


*ptr = NULL;
...
ptr->field = val;
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - 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 - 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.redundant_null_check
Abstract
El programa puede eliminar la referencia de un puntero nulo, lo que provoca una excepción de puntero nulo.
Explanation
Las excepciones del puntero nulo normalmente se producen cuando una o varias de las hipótesis del programador se infringen. En concreto, los errores de desreferencia tras la comprobación se producen cuando un programa realiza una comprobación explícita en busca de null, pero continúa eliminando la referencia del objeto cuando se detecta que es null. Los errores de este tipo son normalmente el resultado de errores de escritura o descuidos del programador.

La mayoría de errores de puntero nulo generan problemas de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si los usuarios maliciosos pueden provocar de forma intencionada que el programa elimine una referencia de un puntero nulo, estos pueden usar la excepción resultante para establecer un ataque de denegación de servicio o conseguir que la aplicación muestre información de depuración, que resultará valiosa al planificar los ataques posteriores.

Ejemplo 1: En el código siguiente, el programador confirma que la variable foo es null y por eso lo desreferencia erróneamente. Si foo es null cuando se compruebe en la instrucción if, se producirá una desreferencia null, provocando una excepción de puntero nulo.


if (foo == null) {
foo.setBar(val);
...
}
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 476
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [14] CWE ID 476
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [13] CWE ID 476
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [15] CWE ID 476
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [11] CWE ID 476
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [12] CWE ID 476
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [21] CWE ID 476
[8] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[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 Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 11.1.7 Business Logic Security Requirements (L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - 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 - 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.internal.java.null_dereference_dereference_after_check
Abstract
La función devuelve una conversión unsigned char a un int, pero el valor devuelto se asigna a un tipo char.
Explanation
Cuando una conversión de carácter sin signo en entero se asigna a un carácter con signo, su valor no se podría distinguir de EOF.

Ejemplo 1: El código siguiente lee un carácter y lo compara con EOF.


char c;

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


En este caso, el valor devuelto de getchar() se convierte en un char y se compara con EOF (un int). Suponiendo que c sea un valor de 8 bits con signo y que EOF sea un valor de 32 bits con signo, entonces si getchar() devuelve un carácter representado por 0xFF, el valor de c producirá una extensión de signo para 0xFFFFFFFF en la comparación con EOF. Como EOF se define normalmente como -1 (0xFFFFFFFF), el bucle finalizará de forma errónea.
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
La función se declara para devolver un valor sin signo, pero en algunos casos intenta devolver un valor negativo.
Explanation
Es peligroso basarse en conversiones implícitas entre números con o sin signo porque el resultado puede tomar un valor inesperado e infringir hipótesis no seguras que se hacen en cualquier parte del programa.

Ejemplo 1: En este ejemplo, la variable amount puede albergar un valor negativo cuando se devuelve. Como la función se declara para devolver un entero sin signo, amount se convierte implícitamente a sin signo.


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


Si se cumple la condición de error del Example 1, el valor devuelto de readdata() será 4,294,967,295 en un sistema que utiliza enteros de 32 bits.

La conversión de valores con y sin signo puede provocar variedad de errores. Sin embargo, desde el punto de vista de la seguridad se asocia comúnmente con vulnerabilidades de desbordamiento de enteros y de búfer.
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
A una variable sin signo se le asigna un número con signo.
Explanation
Es peligroso basarse en conversiones implícitas entre números con o sin signo porque el resultado puede tomar un valor inesperado e infringir hipótesis no seguras que se hacen en cualquier parte del programa.

Ejemplo 1: En este ejemplo, según el valor devuelto de accecssmainframe(), la variable amount puede albergar un valor negativo cuando se devuelve. Como la función se declara para devolver un valor sin signo, amount se convertirá implícitamente en un número sin signo.


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


Si el valor devuelto de accessmainframe() es -1, entonces el valor devuelto de readdata() será 4,294,967,295 en un sistema que utilice enteros de 32 bits.

La conversión de valores con y sin signo puede provocar variedad de errores. Sin embargo, desde el punto de vista de la seguridad se asocia comúnmente con vulnerabilidades de desbordamiento de enteros y de búfer.
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
El comportamiento de esta función no está definido a menos que sus parámetros de control se establezcan en un valor específico.
Explanation
Linux Standard Base Specification 2.0.1 para libc establece restricciones en los argumentos de algunas funciones internas [1]. Si no se cumplen las restricciones, no se define el comportamiento de las funciones.


El valor 1 debe transferirse al primer parámetro (el número de versión) de la siguiente función del sistema de archivos:


__xmknod


El valor 2 debe transferirse al tercer parámetro (el argumento de grupo) de las siguientes funciones de cadenas de caracteres amplias:


__wcstod_internal
__wcstof_internal
_wcstol_internal
__wcstold_internal
__wcstoul_internal


El valor 3 debe transferirse como primer parámetro (el número de versión) de las siguientes funciones del sistema de archivos:


__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
La aplicación utiliza una asignación que elimina la referencia a un objeto ARCHIVO del sistema.
Explanation
En función del compilador de C específico que se utilice, la dirección de un objeto ARCHIVO del sistema puede ser importante para el uso del objeto ARCHIVO como una secuencia. El uso de una copia del objeto ARCHIVO sin la dirección asociada puede generar un comportamiento indefinido que resulte en una posible fuga de información del sistema, un fallo del sistema o la capacidad de un actor malintencionado de leer o editar archivos a su discreción.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código muestra un objeto ARCHIVO del sistema al que se le desreferencia y se copia por valor.


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


Como sysfile se desreferencia en la asignación de insecureFile, el uso deinsecureFile puede resultar en una amplia variedad de problemas.
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
La aplicación utiliza una operación de archivo en un puntero de archivo cerrado.
Explanation
Realizar operaciones de archivos en un objeto ARCHIVO del sistema después de cerrar su secuencia asociada da como resultado un comportamiento indefinido. En función del compilador de C específico que se utilice, la operación del archivo puede provocar un fallo del sistema o incluso provocar la modificación o lectura del mismo archivo o de uno diferente.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código muestra un intento de leer un objeto ARCHIVO del sistema después de cerrar la secuencia correspondiente.


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


Como la función getc() se ejecuta después de que la secuencia del archivo para sysfile esté cerrada, getc() da como resultado un comportamiento indefinido y puede provocar un fallo del sistema o una posible modificación o lectura del mismo archivo o de uno diferente.
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
Eliminar de forma explícita un puntero administrado provocará que el programa se bloquee o no se comporte correctamente.
Explanation
La eliminación de un puntero administrado provocará que el programa se bloquee o se comporte incorrectamente cuando, más adelante, el código de administración del puntero asuma que el puntero sigue siendo válido. El ejemplo siguiente ilustra el error.


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


La única excepción a esta regla aparece cuando una clase de puntero administrado es compatible con una operación "desasociar" lo que permite al programador tomar el control de la administración de la memoria para un puntero determinado. Si el programa desasocia el puntero de la clase de administración antes de llamar delete, la clase de administración sabrá que no puede seguir utilizando el puntero.
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
Es posible que el programa utilice una variable antes de que se haya inicializado.
Explanation
En .NET, las variables estáticas se inicializan con los valores predeterminados. Sin embargo, el uso de dichas variables sin inicializar puede causar problemas relativos a la lógica de negocio o pueden utilizarse para ejecutar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DoS). Los programas no deben utilizar nunca el valor predeterminado de una variable.

No es infrecuente que los programadores usen una variable no inicializada en el código que administre errores u otras circunstancias excepcionales o poco comunes. Los mensajes de advertencia de variables no inicializadas pueden a menudo indicar la presencia de un error tipográfico en el código.

Ejemplo 1: el compilador .NET compilará el siguiente código sin errores. Sin embargo, la siguiente instrucción int a = (Int32)i + (Int32)j; lanza una excepción no controlada y bloquea la aplicación en tiempo de ejecución.

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);
}
}


La mayoría de las variables no inicializadas provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software, pero si los atacantes pueden activar de forma intencionada el uso de una variable no inicializada, es posible que puedan iniciar un ataque por denegación de servicio, lo que bloquearía el programa.
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
El programa puede utilizar una variable antes de que se haya inicializado.
Explanation
Las variables de pila de C y C++ no se inicializan de forma predeterminada. Sus valores iniciales se determinan en función de lo que sucede en su ubicación en la pila en el momento en el que se llama a la función. Los programas no deben usar nunca el valor de una variable no inicializada.

No es infrecuente que los programadores usen una variable no inicializada en el código que administre errores u otras circunstancias excepcionales o poco comunes. Los mensajes de advertencia de variables no inicializadas pueden a menudo indicar la presencia de un error tipográfico en el código.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente declaración de cambio está destinada a establecer valores para las variables.aN y bN, pero en el caso predeterminado, el programador accidentalmente estableció el valor de aN dos veces.


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;
}



La mayoría de las variables no inicializadas dan como resultado problemas generales de fiabilidad del software, pero si los atacantes pueden activar de forma intencionada el uso de una variable no inicializada, podrían lanzar un ataque de denegación de servicio al bloquear el programa. En las circunstancias adecuadas, un atacante podría controlar el valor de una variable no inicializada afectando los valores en la lista antes de la invocación de la función.
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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.
Explanation
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente método nunca cierra el identificador de archivo que abre. El método Finalize() de StreamReader con el tiempo llama a Close(), pero no hay ninguna garantía en cuanto el tiempo que pasará antes de que se llame al método Finalize(). De hecho, no hay ninguna garantía de que se llame en algún momento al método Finalize(). En un entorno muy activo, esto puede provocar que la VM utilice todos los identificadores de archivo disponibles.


private void processFile(string fName) {
StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(fName);
string line;
while ((line = sr.ReadLine()) != null)
processLine(line);
}
Ejemplo 2: en condiciones normales, el siguiente código ejecuta una consulta de base de datos, procesa los resultados devueltos por la base de datos y cierra el objeto SqlConnection asignado. Sin embargo, si se produce una excepción al ejecutar el SQL o al procesar los resultados, el objeto SqlConnection no se cerrará. Si esto ocurre con bastante frecuencia, la base de datos agotará los cursores disponibles y no podrá ejecutar ninguna otra consulta SQL.


...
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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.
Explanation
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente función no cierra el identificador de archivo que abre si se produce un error. Si el proceso se alarga en el tiempo, puede quedarse sin identificadores de archivo.


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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.
Explanation
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión sobre qué parte del programa es responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede desencadenar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, este podría lanzar una denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente programa no cierra el identificador de archivo que abre si se produce un error. Si el proceso se alarga en el tiempo, puede quedarse sin identificadores de archivo.


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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.
Explanation

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente método nunca cierra el identificador socket que abre. La función New() establece una nueva conexión con el daemon de registro del sistema. Forma parte del paquete log.syslog. Cada escritura al escritor devuelto envía un mensaje de registro con la prioridad dada (una combinación de la función syslog y la gravedad) y una etiqueta de prefijo. En un entorno ocupado, esto puede provocar que el sistema consuma todos sus 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)
}
}
Ejemplo 2: En este ejemplo, el método Dial() del paquete net/smtp devuelve un nuevo cliente conectado a un servidor SMTP en localhost. Los recursos de conexión se asignan, pero nunca se liberan llamando a la función Close().


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
Una función no puede liberar en ocasiones un recurso del sistema.
Explanation
El código no puede liberar un recurso del sistema.


La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede desencadenar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, este podría lanzar un ataque de denegación de servicio (DDoS) agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: En el siguiente ejemplo, el recurso creado por Arena.ofConfined() no está cerrado.

...
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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.
Explanation
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: La siguiente función no cierra el identificador de archivo que abre. Si el proceso es de larga duración, los identificadores de archivo se pueden agotar.


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
Una actividad de Android no puede liberar la instancia de Camera en los controladores de eventos onPause(), onStop() o onDestroy().
Explanation
La actividad de Android asigna una instancia de Camera que no se ha liberado en las devoluciones de llamada onPause(), onStop() o onDestroy(). El SO Android invoca estas devoluciones de llamadas cada vez que necesita enviar la actividad actual al segundo plano o cuando necesita destruir temporalmente la actividad debido al bajo nivel de recursos del sistema. Al no liberar correctamente el objeto Camera, la actividad impide que otras aplicaciones (o incluso futuras instancias de la misma aplicación) accedan a la cámara. Además, la conservación de la posesión de la instancia Camera mientras la actividad se encuentra pausada puede afectar negativamente a la experiencia del usuario debido a un consumo innecesario de la energía de la batería.

Ejemplo 1: En el siguiente código se describe una actividad de Android que no reemplaza el método base onPause(), que debe utilizarse para liberar el objeto Camera, ni lo libera correctamente durante la secuencia de cierre.


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
La actividad de Android no puede liberar el objeto MediaRecorder, MediaPlayer o AudioRecord en sus controladores de eventos onPause(), onStop() o onDestroy().
Explanation
La actividad de Android asigna un objeto multimedia que no se ha liberado en la devolución de llamada de onPause(), onStop() o onDestroy(). El SO Android invoca estas devoluciones de llamadas cada vez que necesita enviar la actividad actual al segundo plano o cuando necesita destruir temporalmente la actividad debido al bajo nivel de recursos del sistema. Al no liberar correctamente el objeto multimedia, la actividad provoca que los siguientes accesos al hardware multimedia de Android (por parte de la misma aplicación u otras) se reviertan a las implementaciones de software o incluso presenten errores de forma conjunta. Al dejar abiertas demasiadas instancias multimedia sin liberar, Android generará excepciones, lo que provocará realmente una denegación de servicio. Además, la conservación de la posesión de la instancia multimedia mientras la actividad se encuentra pausada puede afectar negativamente a la experiencia del usuario debido a un consumo innecesario de la energía de la batería.

Ejemplo 1: En el siguiente código se describe una actividad de Android que no reemplaza el método base onPause(), que debe utilizarse para liberar el objeto multimedia, ni lo libera correctamente durante la secuencia de cierre.


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
Una actividad de Android no puede liberar el controlador de base de datos de Android en sus controladores de eventos onPause(), onStop() o onDestroy().
Explanation
La actividad de Android conserva un controlador de base de datos SQLite de Android que no se ha cerrado en la devolución de llamada de onPause(), onStop() o onDestroy(). El SO Android invoca estas devoluciones de llamadas cada vez que necesita enviar la actividad actual al segundo plano o cuando necesita destruir temporalmente la actividad debido al bajo nivel de recursos del sistema. Al no cerrar correctamente la base de datos, la actividad puede agotar los cursores disponibles del dispositivo si la actividad se reinicia constantemente. Además, en función de la implementación, el sistema operativo Android puede generar también DatabaseObjectNotClosedException, lo que provoca que se bloquee la aplicación si no se detecta la excepción.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código describe una actividad de Android que almacena en caché los datos de usuario y escribe los datos en el disco cuando la aplicación se ha detenido. Tenga en cuenta que no reemplaza el método base onPause(), que debería usarse para liberar el objeto de base de datos, ni lo libera correctamente durante la secuencia de cierre.


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
El cursor lo puede utilizar un usuario con pocos privilegios.
Explanation
El cursor puede utilizarse para obtener acceso a información no autorizada.
Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

En SQL, los cursores tienen los privilegios asociados con el código que los creó. Si un usuario con menos privilegios puede capturar el cursor perdido, se podrá utilizar para ver los registros no autorizados.

Además, la mayoría de los problemas de recursos no lanzados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software, pero si un atacante puede desencadenar intencionadamente una pérdida de recursos, dicho atacante puede ser capaz de iniciar una denegación de servicio agotando el grupo de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: El código puede utilizar el procedimiento PWD_COMPARE que no tenga acceso a sys.dba_users para comprobar una contraseña de usuario.


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;


Si el atacante puede causar una excepción, podrá capturar el cursor y obtener acceso a información no autorizada, como la contraseña sys. Una manera de causar una excepción consiste en pasar un argumento demasiado largo a p_user. Una vez que el usuario malintencionado sepa que el cursor se ha perdido, solo tiene que adivinarlo y asignar nuevas variables de enlace.


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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso de base de datos.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede desencadenar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, este podría lanzar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código ejecuta una consulta de base de datos, pero no libera la instrucción ni los recursos de conexión.

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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.
Explanation
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso del sistema.

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: En condiciones normales, el siguiente código ejecuta una consulta de base de datos, procesa los resultados devueltos por la base de datos y cierra el objeto SqlConnection asignado. Sin embargo, si se produce una excepción al ejecutar el SQL o al procesar los resultados, el objeto SqlConnection no se cerrará. Si esto ocurre con bastante frecuencia, la base de datos agotará los cursores disponibles y no podrá ejecutar ninguna otra consulta SQL.


...
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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso de base de datos.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código ejecuta una consulta de base de datos, pero no libera la instrucción ni los recursos de conexión.

- 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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso de base de datos.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: En condiciones normales, el siguiente código ejecuta una consulta de base de datos, procesa los resultados devueltos por la base de datos y cierra el objeto de instrucción asignado. Sin embargo, si se produce una excepción al ejecutar el SQL o al procesar los resultados, el objeto de instrucción no se cerrará. Si esto ocurre con bastante frecuencia, la base de datos agotará los cursores disponibles y no podrá ejecutar ninguna otra consulta SQL.

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
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un recurso de base de datos.
Explanation
Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: El siguiente código ejecuta una consulta de base de datos, pero no libera la instrucción ni los recursos de conexión.

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
Abstract
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un identificador de archivo.
Explanation
Es posible que el programa no pueda liberar un identificador de archivo.

Las pérdidas de recursos presentan dos causas habituales:

- Condiciones de error y otras circunstancias excepcionales.

- Confusión en cuanto a la parte del programa responsable de liberar el recurso.

La mayoría de los problemas de recursos no liberados provocan problemas generales de confiabilidad del software. Sin embargo, si un usuario malintencionado puede activar de forma intencionada una pérdida de recursos, es posible que este pueda iniciar un ataque de denegación de servicio agotando el conjunto de recursos.

Ejemplo 1: el siguiente método nunca cierra el identificador de archivo que abre. El método finalize() de ZipFile con el tiempo llama a close(), pero no hay ninguna garantía en cuanto al tiempo que pasará antes de que se llame al método finalize(). En un entorno muy activo, esto puede provocar que la JVM utilice todos los identificadores de archivo.


public void printZipContents(String fName) throws ZipException, IOException, SecurityException, IllegalStateException, NoSuchElementException {
ZipFile zf = new ZipFile(fName);
Enumeration<ZipEntry> e = zf.entries();

while (e.hasMoreElements()) {
printFileInfo(e.nextElement());
}
}
Ejemplo 2: en condiciones normales, la siguiente solución cierra correctamente el identificador de archivo tras imprimir todas las entradas de archivos zip. Sin embargo, si se produce una excepción al iterar por las entradas, no se cerrará el identificador de archivo zip. Si esto se produce con suficiente frecuencia, la JVM podría quedarse sin identificadores de archivo disponibles.


public void printZipContents(String fName) throws ZipException, IOException, SecurityException, IllegalStateException, NoSuchElementException {
ZipFile zf = new ZipFile(fName);
Enumeration<ZipEntry> e = zf.entries();

while (e.hasMoreElements()) {
printFileInfo(e.nextElement());
}
zf.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 775
[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)
[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.java.unreleased_resource_files