CWE-484 詳細

The product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.

導入モード

Implementation

適用可能なプラットフォーム

言語

名前： C (Undetermined)
名前： C++ (Undetermined)
名前： Java (Undetermined)
名前： C# (Undetermined)
名前： PHP (Undetermined)
クラス： Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

一般的な結果

潜在的な緩和策

Phases : Implementation
Omitting a break statement so that one may fall through is often indistinguishable from an error, and therefore should be avoided. If you need to use fall-through capabilities, make sure that you have clearly documented this within the switch statement, and ensure that you have examined all the logical possibilities.
Phases : Implementation
The functionality of omitting a break statement could be clarified with an if statement. This method is much safer.

検出方法

White Box

Omission of a break statement might be intentional, in order to support fallthrough. Automated detection methods might therefore be erroneous. Semantic understanding of expected product behavior is required to interpret whether the code is correct.

Black Box

Since this weakness is associated with a code construct, it would be indistinguishable from other errors that produce the same behavior.

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.)
有効性 : High

脆弱性マッピングノート

理由 : 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.
コメント : 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.

参考文献

REF-18

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

REF-62

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

REF-1534

Automated Technical Debt Measure, Version 2
OMG.
https://www.omg.org/spec/ATDM2/1.0/PDF

登録情報

変更履歴