CWE-354
Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
MEDIUM
Draft
2006-07-19 00:00 +00:00
2024-02-29 00:00 +00:00
Alerte pour un CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
Extended Description
Improper validation of checksums before use results in an unnecessary risk that can easily be mitigated. The protocol specification describes the algorithm used for calculating the checksum. It is then a simple matter of implementing the calculation and verifying that the calculated checksum and the received checksum match. Improper verification of the calculated checksum and the received checksum can lead to far greater consequences.
Informations
Modes Of Introduction
Architecture and DesignImplementation : REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Applicable Platforms
Language
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)Common Consequences
| Scope | Impact | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| Integrity Other | Modify Application Data, Other Note: Integrity checks usually use a secret key that helps authenticate the data origin. Skipping integrity checking generally opens up the possibility that new data from an invalid source can be injected. | |
| Integrity Other | Other Note: Data that is parsed and used may be corrupted. | |
| Non-Repudiation Other | Hide Activities, Other Note: Without a checksum check, it is impossible to determine if any changes have been made to the data after it was sent. |
Potential Mitigations
Phases : ImplementationEnsure that the checksums present in messages are properly checked in accordance with the protocol specification before they are parsed and used.
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-145 | Checksum Spoofing An adversary spoofs a checksum message for the purpose of making a payload appear to have a valid corresponding checksum. Checksums are used to verify message integrity. They consist of some value based on the value of the message they are protecting. Hash codes are a common checksum mechanism. Both the sender and recipient are able to compute the checksum based on the contents of the message. If the message contents change between the sender and recipient, the sender and recipient will compute different checksum values. Since the sender's checksum value is transmitted with the message, the recipient would know that a modification occurred. In checksum spoofing an adversary modifies the message body and then modifies the corresponding checksum so that the recipient's checksum calculation will match the checksum (created by the adversary) in the message. This would prevent the recipient from realizing that a change occurred. |
| CAPEC-463 | Padding Oracle Crypto Attack An adversary is able to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key if a target system leaks data on whether or not a padding error happened while decrypting the ciphertext. A target system that leaks this type of information becomes the padding oracle and an adversary is able to make use of that oracle to efficiently decrypt data without knowing the decryption key by issuing on average 128*b calls to the padding oracle (where b is the number of bytes in the ciphertext block). In addition to performing decryption, an adversary is also able to produce valid ciphertexts (i.e., perform encryption) by using the padding oracle, all without knowing the encryption key. |
| CAPEC-75 | Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users. |
References
REF-18
The CLASP Application Security ProcessSecure Software, Inc..
https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf
Submission
| Name | Organization | Date | Date Release | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLASP | Draft 3 |
Modifications
| Name | Organization | Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Dalci | Cigital | updated Time_of_Introduction | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description, Name, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description, Other_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated References, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Mapping_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Taxonomy_Mappings |
2024©
tesweb SA
