CWE-483 Detail

CWE-483

Incorrect Block Delimitation
Laag
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2025-12-11
00h00 +00:00
CWE Mitre.org
Meldingen voor een CWE
Blijf op de hoogte van wijzigingen voor een specifieke CWE.
Meldingen beheren

Naam: Incorrect Block Delimitation

The code does not explicitly delimit a block that is intended to contain 2 or more statements, creating a logic error.

CWE-beschrijving

In some languages, braces (or other delimiters) are optional for blocks. When the delimiter is omitted, it is possible to insert a logic error in which a statement is thought to be in a block but is not. In some cases, the logic error can have security implications.

Algemene informatie

Introductiemodi

Implementation

Toepasselijke platforms

Taal

Name: C (Sometimes)
Name: C++ (Sometimes)

Veelvoorkomende gevolgen

Bereik Impact Waarschijnlijkheid
Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability		Alter Execution Logic

Note: This is a general logic error which will often lead to obviously-incorrect behaviors that are quickly noticed and fixed. In lightly tested or untested code, this error may be introduced it into a production environment and provide additional attack vectors by creating a control flow path leading to an unexpected state in the application. The consequences will depend on the types of behaviors that are being incorrectly executed.

Waargenomen voorbeelden

Referenties Beschrijving

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). The code's whitespace indentation did not reflect the actual control flow (CWE-1114) and did not explicitly delimit the block (CWE-483), which could have made it more difficult for human code auditors to detect the vulnerability.

Mogelijke risicobeperkingen

Phases : Implementation
Always use explicit block delimitation and use static-analysis technologies to enforce this practice.

Detectiemethoden

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.)
Effectiviteit : High

Notities kwetsbaarheidsmapping

Rechtvaardiging : 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.
Opmerking : 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.

Referenties

REF-18

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

Indiening

Naam Organisatie Datum Releasedatum Version
CLASP 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Wijzigingen

Naam Organisatie Datum Opmerking
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-05-27 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-10-29 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2010-06-21 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Other_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-27 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-06-23 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-01-03 +00:00 updated Weakness_Ordinalities
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated References, Relationships, Type
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 2023-10-26 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2025-12-11 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
De informatie die op CVE Find wordt gepresenteerd, is afkomstig van verschillende zorgvuldig geselecteerde referentiebronnen. CVE-gegevens worden geleverd door MITRE Corporation en de National Vulnerability Database (NVD). De Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV)-catalogus is afkomstig van de Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), terwijl EPSS-scores afkomstig zijn van FIRST.org. Daarnaast worden gegevens over softwarezwakheden (CWE) en veelvoorkomende aanvalspatronen (CAPEC) bijgehouden door MITRE Corporation, en informatie over hardware- en softwareconfiguraties (CPE) wordt geleverd door de NVD.