Reino: Code Quality

Códigos de baixa qualidade levam a comportamentos imprevisíveis. Da perspectiva do usuário, isso normalmente se manifesta como usabilidade ruim. Para um invasor, trata-se de uma oportunidade para atacar o sistema de formas imprevistas.

4 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
Abstract
Funções com implementações inconsistentes entre sistemas operacionais e versões de sistemas operacionais causam problemas de portabilidade.
Explanation
O comportamento de funções nessa categoria varia de acordo com o sistema operacional e, às vezes, até mesmo com a versão do sistema operacional. Diferenças de implementação podem incluir:

- Pequenas diferenças em como os parâmetros são interpretados, provocando resultados inconsistentes.

- Algumas implementações da função contêm riscos de segurança significativos.

- A função não pode ser definida em todas as plataformas.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 474
[2] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001310
[3] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[4] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[5] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[6] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[7] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[8] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[9] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[10] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[11] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[12] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002520 CAT II
desc.semantic.cpp.portability_flaw
Abstract
O uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo causa problemas de portabilidade.
Explanation
Diferentes sistemas operacionais usam diferentes caracteres como separadores de arquivo. Por exemplo, os sistemas Microsoft Windows usam "\", enquanto os sistemas UNIX usam "/". Quando os aplicativos precisam ser executados em plataformas diferentes, o uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo pode resultar na execução incorreta da lógica do aplicativo e, potencialmente, em uma negação de serviço.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa um separador de arquivo inserido em código fixo para abrir um arquivo:


...
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
O uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo causa problemas de portabilidade.
Explanation
Diferentes sistemas operacionais usam diferentes caracteres como separadores de arquivo. Por exemplo, os sistemas Microsoft Windows usam "\", enquanto os sistemas UNIX usam "/". Quando os aplicativos precisam ser executados em plataformas diferentes, o uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo pode resultar na execução incorreta da lógica do aplicativo e, potencialmente, em uma negação de serviço.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa um separador de arquivo inserido em código fixo para abrir um arquivo:


...
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
O uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo causa problemas de portabilidade.
Explanation
Diferentes sistemas operacionais usam diferentes caracteres como separadores de arquivo. Por exemplo, os sistemas Microsoft Windows usam "\", enquanto os sistemas UNIX usam "/". Quando os aplicativos precisam ser executados em plataformas diferentes, o uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo pode resultar na execução incorreta da lógica do aplicativo e, potencialmente, em uma negação de serviço.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa um separador de arquivo inserido em código fixo para abrir um arquivo:


...
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
O uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo causa problemas de portabilidade.
Explanation
Diferentes sistemas operacionais usam diferentes caracteres como separadores de arquivo. Por exemplo, os sistemas Microsoft Windows usam "\", enquanto os sistemas UNIX usam "/". Quando os aplicativos precisam ser executados em plataformas diferentes, o uso de separadores de arquivo inseridos em código fixo pode resultar na execução incorreta da lógica do aplicativo e, potencialmente, em uma negação de serviço.

Exemplo 1: O seguinte código usa um separador de arquivo inserido em código fixo para abrir um arquivo:


...
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
Problemas de portabilidade inesperados podem ser encontrados quando a localidade não é especificada.
Explanation
Ao comparar dados que pode ser dependentes de localidade, uma localidade apropriada deve ser especificada.

Exemplo 1: O exemplo a seguir tenta realizar uma validação para determinar se a entrada do usuário inclui uma tag <script>.

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


O problema com o Example 1 é que java.lang.String.toUpperCase(), quando usado sem uma localidade, aplica as regras da localidade padrão. O uso da localidade turca "title".toUpperCase() retorna "T\u0130TLE", onde "\u0130" é o caractere "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE". Isso pode provocar resultados inesperados, como no Example 1, em que isso impedirá que a palavra "script" seja capturada por essa validação, podendo causar uma vulnerabilidade de Cross-Site Scripting.
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
O uso de SQL nativo causa problemas de portabilidade.
Explanation
Os sistemas SAP são projetados para serem independentes de plataforma. Open SQL, o dialeto SQL portátil do SAP, torna os aplicativos independentes do driver JDBC de um fornecedor de banco de dados específico. A utilização do Open SQL abstrai os meandros do banco de dados subjacente e fornece uma interface comum para programas de aplicativo para todas as operações de banco de dados. No entanto, o SQL nativo é específico do banco de dados subjacente e, portanto, o uso dele em outras plataformas pode provocar a execução incorreta da lógica do aplicativo e, potencialmente, uma negação de serviço.
Exemplo 1: O seguinte 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