CWE-500 Detail

CWE-500

Public Static Field Not Marked Final
High
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2023-06-29
00h00 +00:00
Notifications for a CWE
Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Notifications manage

Name: Public Static Field Not Marked Final

An object contains a public static field that is not marked final, which might allow it to be modified in unexpected ways.

CWE Description

Public static variables can be read without an accessor and changed without a mutator by any classes in the application.

General Informations

Background Details

When a field is declared public but not final, the field can be read and written to by arbitrary Java code.

Modes Of Introduction

Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Language

Name: C++ (Undetermined)
Name: Java (Undetermined)

Common Consequences

Scope Impact Likelihood
IntegrityModify Application Data

Note: The object could potentially be tampered with.
ConfidentialityRead Application Data

Note: The object could potentially allow the object to be read.

Potential Mitigations

Phases : Architecture and Design
Clearly identify the scope for all critical data elements, including whether they should be regarded as static.
Phases : Implementation

Make any static fields private and constant.

A constant field is denoted by the keyword 'const' in C/C++ and ' final' in Java


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 Variant 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.

References

REF-18

The CLASP Application Security Process
Secure Software, Inc..
https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf

Submission

Name Organization Date Date release Version
CLASP 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Name Organization Date Comment
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Time_of_Introduction
KDM Analytics 2008-08-01 +00:00 added/updated white box definitions
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-11-05 +00:00 Significant clarification of this entry, and improved examples.
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-11-24 +00:00 updated Background_Details, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Name, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-05-27 +00:00 updated Relationships
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, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-10-30 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, 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 White_Box_Definitions
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