Modes d'introduction
Implementation : A call to System.exit() is probably part of leftover debug code or code imported from a non-J2EE application.
Plateformes applicables
Langue
Name: Java (Undetermined)
Conséquences courantes
Portée |
Impact |
Probabilité |
Availability | DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart | |
Mesures d’atténuation potentielles
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
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 Variant 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
Soumission
Nom |
Organisation |
Date |
Date de publication |
Version |
7 Pernicious Kingdoms |
|
2006-07-19 +00:00 |
2006-07-19 +00:00 |
Draft 3 |
Modifications
Nom |
Organisation |
Date |
Commentaire |
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 |