Détail du CWE-252

The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.

Two common programmer assumptions are "this function call can never fail" and "it doesn't matter if this function call fails". If an attacker can force the function to fail or otherwise return a value that is not expected, then the subsequent program logic could lead to a vulnerability, because the product is not in a state that the programmer assumes. For example, if the program calls a function to drop privileges but does not check the return code to ensure that privileges were successfully dropped, then the program will continue to operate with the higher privileges.

Informations de base

Many functions will return some value about the success of their actions. This will alert the program whether or not to handle any errors caused by that function.

Modes d'introduction

Implementation

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Conséquences courantes

Exemples observés

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is expected.
Phases : Implementation
Ensure that you account for all possible return values from the function.
Phases : Implementation
When designing a function, make sure you return a value or throw an exception in case of an error.

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 at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Commentaire : 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.

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

REF-62

The Art of Software Security Assessment
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, Justin Schuh.

REF-7

Writing Secure Code
Michael Howard, David LeBlanc.
https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223

REF-44

24 Deadly Sins of Software Security
Michael Howard, David LeBlanc, John Viega.

REF-961

Automated Source Code Reliability Measure (ASCRM)
Object Management Group (OMG).
http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCRM/1.0/

REF-961

Automated Source Code Reliability Measure (ASCRM)
Object Management Group (OMG).
http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCRM/1.0/

REF-962

Automated Source Code Security Measure (ASCSM)
Object Management Group (OMG).
http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCSM/1.0/

Soumission

Modifications