CWE-382 Detail

CWE-382

J2EE Bad Practices: Use of System.exit()
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2024-02-29
00h00 +00:00
Notifications for a CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Notifications manage

Name: J2EE Bad Practices: Use of System.exit()

A J2EE application uses System.exit(), which also shuts down its container.

CWE Description

It is never a good idea for a web application to attempt to shut down the application container. Access to a function that can shut down the application is an avenue for Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.

General Informations

Modes Of Introduction

Implementation : A call to System.exit() is probably part of leftover debug code or code imported from a non-J2EE application.

Applicable Platforms

Language

Name: Java (Undetermined)

Common Consequences

Scope Impact Likelihood
AvailabilityDoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Potential Mitigations

Phases : Architecture and Design
The shutdown function should be a privileged function available only to a properly authorized administrative user
Phases : Implementation
Web applications should not call methods that cause the virtual machine to exit, such as System.exit()
Phases : Implementation
Web applications should also not throw any Throwables to the application server as this may adversely affect the container.
Phases : Implementation
Non-web applications may have a main() method that contains a System.exit(), but generally should not call System.exit() from other locations in the code

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness : High

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Justification : This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Comment : 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.

References

REF-6

Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors
Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess, Gary McGraw.
https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf

Submission

Name Organization Date Date release Version
7 Pernicious Kingdoms 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Name Organization Date Comment
Sean Eidemiller Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 added/updated demonstrative examples
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-06-23 +00:00 updated Description, Modes_of_Introduction, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-01-03 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated References, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2024-02-29 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples