名稱: Incorrect Block Delimitation
The code does not explicitly delimit a block that is intended to contain 2 or more statements.
一般資訊
背景詳情
引入方式
Implementation適用平台
程式語言
名稱： C (Sometimes)名稱： C++ (Sometimes)
常見後果
| 範圍 | 影響 | 可能性 |
|---|---|---|
| Confidentiality Integrity Availability | Alter Execution Logic 注意：This is a general logic error that 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. |
觀察到的案例
| 參考資料 | 描述 |
|---|---|
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. |
潛在緩解措施
Phases : ImplementationAlways use explicit block delimitation and use static-analysis technologies to enforce this practice.
偵測方法
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.)有效性 : High
漏洞對應備注
理由說明 : 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.備註 : 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.
參考資料
REF-18
The CLASP Application Security ProcessSecure Software, Inc..
https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf
提交
| 名稱 | 機構 | 日期 | 發布日期 | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLASP | Draft 3 |
修改記錄
| 名稱 | 機構 | 日期 | 備註 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Dalci | Cigital | updated Time_of_Introduction | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Other_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Observed_Examples | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Weakness_Ordinalities | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated References, Relationships, Type | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Detection_Factors, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Mapping_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Observed_Examples | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Background_Details, Common_Consequences, Description |
