Détail du CWE-561

CWE-561

Dead Code
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2024-02-29
00h00 +00:00
CWE Mitre.org
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Dead Code

The product contains dead code, which can never be executed.

Description du CWE

Dead code is code that can never be executed in a running program. The surrounding code makes it impossible for a section of code to ever be executed.

Informations générales

Modes d'introduction

Implementation

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
OtherQuality Degradation

Note: Dead code that results from code that can never be executed is an indication of problems with the source code that needs to be fixed and is an indication of poor quality.
OtherReduce Maintainability

Exemples observés

Références Description

CVE-2014-1266

chain: incorrect "goto" in Apple SSL product bypasses certificate validation, allowing Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack (Apple "goto fail" bug). CWE-705 (Incorrect Control Flow Scoping) -> CWE-561 (Dead Code) -> CWE-295 (Improper Certificate Validation) -> CWE-393 (Return of Wrong Status Code) -> CWE-300 (Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint).

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : Implementation
Remove dead code before deploying the application.
Phases : Testing
Use a static analysis tool to spot dead code.

Méthodes de détection

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
  • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Attack Modeling

Efficacité : High

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Binary / Bytecode Quality Analysis
  • Compare binary / bytecode to application permission manifest

Efficacité : High

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Automated Monitored Execution

Efficacité : SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Permission Manifest Analysis

Efficacité : SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Source Code Quality Analyzer
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Warning Flags
  • Source code Weakness Analyzer
  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Efficacité : High

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Web Application Scanner
  • Web Services Scanner
  • Database Scanners

Efficacité : SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR, the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source

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-960

Automated Source Code Maintainability Measure (ASCMM)
Object Management Group (OMG).
https://www.omg.org/spec/ASCMM/

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
Anonymous Tool Vendor (under NDA) 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Description, 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 2009-07-27 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-10-29 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Other_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-09-13 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-10-30 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-06-23 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Detection_Factors, 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 Common_Consequences, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-06-20 +00:00 updated Type
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms, Observed_Examples, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-08-20 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-03-15 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-07-20 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-01-31 +00:00 updated Description
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated References, 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