CWE-1265
Unintended Reentrant Invocation of Non-reentrant Code Via Nested Calls
Draft
2020-02-24 00:00 +00:00
2023-06-29 00:00 +00:00
Alerte pour un CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Unintended Reentrant Invocation of Non-reentrant Code Via Nested Calls
During execution of non-reentrant code, the product performs a call that unintentionally produces a nested invocation of the non-reentrant code.
Extended Description
In a complex product, a single function call may lead to many different possible code paths, some of which may involve deeply nested calls. It may be difficult to foresee all possible code paths that could emanate from a given function call. In some systems, an external actor can manipulate inputs to the system and thereby achieve a wide range of possible control flows. This is frequently a concern in products that execute scripts from untrusted sources. Examples of such products are web browsers and PDF readers. A weakness is present when one of the possible code paths resulting from a function call alters program state that the original caller assumes to be unchanged during the call.
Informations
Applicable Platforms
Language
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)Common Consequences
| Scope | Impact | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| Integrity | Unexpected State Note: Exploitation of this weakness can leave the application in an unexpected state and cause variables to be reassigned before the first invocation has completed. This may eventually result in memory corruption or unexpected code execution. | Unknown |
Observed Examples
| Reference | Description |
|---|---|
| In this vulnerability, by registering a malicious onerror handler, an adversary can produce unexpected re-entrance of a CDOMRange object. [REF-1098] | |
| This CVE covers several vulnerable scenarios enabled by abuse of the Class_Terminate feature in Microsoft VBScript. In one scenario, Class_Terminate is used to produce an undesirable re-entrance of ScriptingDictionary during execution of that object's destructor. In another scenario, a vulnerable condition results from a recursive entrance of a property setter method. This recursive invocation produces a second, spurious call to the Release method of a reference-counted object, causing a UAF when that object is freed prematurely. This vulnerability pattern has been popularized as "Double Kill". [REF-1099] |
Potential Mitigations
Phases : Architecture and DesignWhen architecting a system that will execute untrusted code in response to events, consider executing the untrusted event handlers asynchronously (asynchronous message passing) as opposed to executing them synchronously at the time each event fires. The untrusted code should execute at the start of the next iteration of the thread's message loop. In this way, calls into non-reentrant code are strictly serialized, so that each operation completes fully before the next operation begins. Special attention must be paid to all places where type coercion may result in script execution. Performing all needed coercions at the very beginning of an operation can help reduce the chance of operations executing at unexpected junctures.
Phases : Implementation
Make sure the code (e.g., function or class) in question is reentrant by not leveraging non-local data, not modifying its own code, and not calling other non-reentrant code.
Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Rationale : This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.Comments : Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.
Related Attack Patterns
| CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|---|
| CAPEC-74 | Manipulating State The adversary modifies state information maintained by the target software or causes a state transition in hardware. If successful, the target will use this tainted state and execute in an unintended manner. State management is an important function within a software application. User state maintained by the application can include usernames, payment information, browsing history as well as application-specific contents such as items in a shopping cart. Manipulating user state can be employed by an adversary to elevate privilege, conduct fraudulent transactions or otherwise modify the flow of the application to derive certain benefits. If there is a hardware logic error in a finite state machine, the adversary can use this to put the system in an undefined state which could cause a denial of service or exposure of secure data. |
References
REF-1098
Root Cause Analysis of CVE-2014-1772 - An Internet Explorer Use After Free VulnerabilityJack Tang.
https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research.html
REF-1099
It's Time To Terminate The TerminatorSimon Zuckerbraun.
https://www.zerodayinitiative.com/blog/2018/5/15/its-time-to-terminate-the-terminator
Submission
| Name | Organization | Date | Date Release | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simon Zuckerbraun | Trend Micro | 4.1 |
Modifications
| Name | Organization | Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated References | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated References, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Mapping_Notes |
2024©
tesweb SA
