Détail du CWE-114

Executing commands or loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands (and payloads) on behalf of an attacker.

Process control vulnerabilities take two forms:

• An attacker can change the command that the program executes: the attacker explicitly controls what the command is.
• An attacker can change the environment in which the command executes: the attacker implicitly controls what the command means.

Process control vulnerabilities of the first type occur when either data enters the application from an untrusted source and the data is used as part of a string representing a command that is executed by the application. By executing the command, the application gives an attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.

Modes d'introduction

Implementation : REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Conséquences courantes

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : Architecture and Design
Libraries that are loaded should be well understood and come from a trusted source. The application can execute code contained in the native libraries, which often contain calls that are susceptible to other security problems, such as buffer overflows or command injection. All native libraries should be validated to determine if the application requires the use of the library. It is very difficult to determine what these native libraries actually do, and the potential for malicious code is high. In addition, the potential for an inadvertent mistake in these native libraries is also high, as many are written in C or C++ and may be susceptible to buffer overflow or race condition problems. To help prevent buffer overflow attacks, validate all input to native calls for content and length. If the native library does not come from a trusted source, review the source code of the library. The library should be built from the reviewed source before using it.

Méthodes de détection

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.)
Efficacité : High

Notes de cartographie des vulnérabilités

Justification : This CWE entry is a Class, but it does not have Base-level children. Also, it combines multiple weaknesses that are related to the same behavior (process invocation). As a result, it might be Deprecated.
Commentaire : This entry is classified in a part of CWE's hierarchy that does not have sufficiently low-level coverage, which might reflect a lack of classification-oriented weakness research in the software security community. Conduct careful root cause analysis to determine the original mistake that led to this weakness. If closer analysis reveals that this weakness is appropriate, then this might be the best available CWE to use for mapping. If no other option is available, then it is acceptable to map to this CWE.

Modèles d'attaque associés

NotesNotes

CWE-114 is a Class, but it is listed a child of CWE-73 in view 1000. This suggests some abstraction problems that should be resolved in future versions.
This entry seems more attack-oriented, or organized around common legitimate behaviors (process invocation) instead of the mistakes in those behaviors. There is likely too much overlap with other CWEs including CWE-73, CWE-426, CWE-427, or other weaknesses related to process invocation.

Références

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

Soumission

Modifications