Modes Of Introduction
Implementation
Applicable Platforms
Language
Name: C (Undetermined)
Name: C++ (Undetermined)
Common Consequences
Scope |
Impact |
Likelihood |
Availability Integrity Confidentiality | Read Memory, Modify Memory, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
Note: If the returned stack buffer address is dereferenced after the return, then an attacker may be able to modify or read memory, depending on how the address is used. If the address is used for reading, then the address itself may be exposed, or the contents that the address points to. If the address is used for writing, this can lead to a crash and possibly code execution. | |
Potential Mitigations
Phases : Testing
Use static analysis tools to spot return of the address of a stack variable.
Detection Methods
Fuzzing
Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a powerful technique for generating large numbers of diverse inputs - either randomly or algorithmically - and dynamically invoking the code with those inputs. Even with random inputs, it is often capable of generating unexpected results such as crashes, memory corruption, or resource consumption. Fuzzing effectively produces repeatable test cases that clearly indicate bugs, which helps developers to diagnose the issues.
Effectiveness : High
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 Base 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.
Submission
Name |
Organization |
Date |
Date release |
Version |
Anonymous Tool Vendor (under NDA) |
|
2006-07-19 +00:00 |
2006-07-19 +00:00 |
Draft 3 |
Modifications
Name |
Organization |
Date |
Comment |
Eric Dalci |
Cigital |
2008-07-01 +00:00 |
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2008-09-08 +00:00 |
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2008-11-24 +00:00 |
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2009-05-27 +00:00 |
updated Demonstrative_Examples |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2010-09-27 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2011-06-01 +00:00 |
updated Common_Consequences |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2012-05-11 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2012-10-30 +00:00 |
updated Potential_Mitigations |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2014-06-23 +00:00 |
updated Description, Other_Notes |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2014-07-30 +00:00 |
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2017-11-08 +00:00 |
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2019-01-03 +00:00 |
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2020-02-24 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2020-06-25 +00:00 |
updated Common_Consequences |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2020-08-20 +00:00 |
updated Relationships |
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
2020-12-10 +00:00 |
updated 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 |