Détail du CWE-597

CWE-597

Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison
Draft
2006-12-15
00h00 +00:00
2025-04-03
00h00 +00:00
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison

The product uses the wrong operator when comparing a string, such as using "==" when the .equals() method should be used instead.

Description du CWE

In Java, using == or != to compare two strings for equality actually compares two objects for equality rather than their string values for equality. Chances are good that the two references will never be equal. While this weakness often only affects program correctness, if the equality is used for a security decision, the unintended comparison result could be leveraged to affect program security.

Informations générales

Modes d'introduction

Implementation

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
OtherOther

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : Implementation
Within Java, use .equals() to compare string values.
Within JavaScript, use == to compare string values.
Within PHP, use == to compare a numeric value to a string value. (PHP converts the string to a number.)

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-62

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

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
CWE Content Team MITRE 2006-12-15 +00:00 2006-12-15 +00:00 Draft 5

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
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-10-14 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-05-27 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-03-29 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Potential_Mitigations
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 Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-01-03 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-08-20 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2021-03-15 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Potential_Mitigations, 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 2025-04-03 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples