CWE-128
Notifications for a CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Name: Wrap-around Error
Wrap around errors occur whenever a value is incremented past the maximum value for its type and therefore "wraps around" to a very small, negative, or undefined value.
General Informations
Background Details
Due to how addition is performed by computers, if a primitive is incremented past the maximum value possible for its storage space, the system will not recognize this, and therefore increment each bit as if it still had extra space. Because of how negative numbers are represented in binary, primitives interpreted as signed may "wrap" to very large negative values.Modes Of Introduction
ImplementationApplicable Platforms
Language
Name: C (Often)Name: C++ (Often)
Common Consequences
| Scope | Impact | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| Availability | DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Instability Note: This weakness will generally lead to undefined behavior and therefore crashes. In the case of overflows involving loop index variables, the likelihood of infinite loops is also high. | |
| Integrity | Modify Memory Note: If the value in question is important to data (as opposed to flow), simple data corruption has occurred. Also, if the wrap around results in other conditions such as buffer overflows, further memory corruption may occur. | |
| Confidentiality Availability Access Control | Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Bypass Protection Mechanism Note: This weakness can sometimes trigger buffer overflows which can be used to execute arbitrary code. This is usually outside the scope of a program's implicit security policy. |
Potential Mitigations
Requirements specification: The choice could be made to use a language that is not susceptible to these issues.Phases : Architecture and Design
Provide clear upper and lower bounds on the scale of any protocols designed.
Phases : Implementation
Perform validation on all incremented variables to ensure that they remain within reasonable bounds.
Detection Methods
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.
Related Attack Patterns
| CAPEC-ID | Attack Pattern Name |
|---|---|
| CAPEC-92 | Forced Integer Overflow This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code. |
NotesNotes
The relationship between overflow and wrap-around needs to be examined more closely, since several entries (including CWE-190) are closely related.References
REF-44
24 Deadly Sins of Software SecurityMichael Howard, David LeBlanc, John Viega.
REF-62
The Art of Software Security AssessmentMark Dowd, John McDonald, Justin Schuh.
REF-18
The CLASP Application Security ProcessSecure Software, Inc..
https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf
Submission
| Name | Organization | Date | Date release | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLASP | Draft 3 |
Modifications
| Name | Organization | Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Applicable_Platforms, Background_Details, Common_Consequences, Relationships, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Background_Details | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Causal_Nature, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Potential_Mitigations, References | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Mapping_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Detection_Factors |
