CWE-1293 – Missing Source Correlation of Multiple Independent Data

Read Time:54 Second

Description

The software relies on one source of data, preventing the ability to detect if an adversary has compromised a data source.

Modes of Introduction:

– Architecture and Design

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-345
CWE-654

 

Consequences

Confidentiality, Integrity: Read Application Data, Modify Application Data, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

An attacker that may be able to execute a single Person-in-the-Middle attack can subvert a check of an external oracle (e.g. the ACME protocol check for a file on a website), and thus inject an arbitrary reply to the single perspective request to the external oracle.

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Requirements

Description: 

Design system to use a Practical Byzantine fault method, to request information from multiple sources to verify the data and report on potentially compromised information sources.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Failure to use a Practical Byzantine fault method when requesting data. Lack of place to report potentially compromised information sources. Relying on non-independent information sources for integrity checking. Failure to report information sources that respond in the minority to incident response procedures.

CVE References

CWE-1292 – Incorrect Conversion of Security Identifiers

Read Time:33 Second

Description

The product implements a conversion mechanism to map certain bus-transaction signals to security identifiers. However, if the conversion is incorrectly implemented, untrusted agents can gain unauthorized access to the asset.

Modes of Introduction:

– Architecture and Design

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-284
CWE-1294

 

Consequences

Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Access Control: Modify Memory, Read Memory, DoS: Resource Consumption (Other), Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Quality Degradation

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Architecture and Design

Description: 

Security identifier decoders must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Access and programming flows must be tested in pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.

CVE References

CWE-1291 – Public Key Re-Use for Signing both Debug and Production Code

Read Time:21 Second

Description

The same public key is used for signing both debug and production code.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-693
CWE-321

 

Consequences

Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Access Control, Accountability, Authentication, Authorization, Non-Repudiation, Other: Read Memory, Modify Memory, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Varies by Context

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Use different keys for Production and Debug

CVE References

CWE-1290 – Incorrect Decoding of Security Identifiers

Read Time:35 Second

Description

The product implements a decoding mechanism to decode certain bus-transaction signals to security identifiers. If the decoding is implemented incorrectly, then untrusted agents can now gain unauthorized access to the asset.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-284
CWE-1294

 

Consequences

Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Access Control: Modify Memory, Read Memory, DoS: Resource Consumption (Other), Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Quality Degradation

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Architecture and Design

Description: 

Security identifier decoders must be reviewed for design consistency and common weaknesses.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Access and programming flows must be tested in pre-silicon and post-silicon testing in order to check for this weakness.

CVE References

CWE-129 – Improper Validation of Array Index

Read Time:3 Minute, 58 Second

Description

The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

Likelihood of Exploit: High

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-1285
CWE-20
CWE-119
CWE-823
CWE-789

 

Consequences

Integrity, Availability: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Use of an index that is outside the bounds of an array will very likely result in the corruption of relevant memory and perhaps instructions, leading to a crash, if the values are outside of the valid memory area.

Integrity: Modify Memory

If the memory corrupted is data, rather than instructions, the system will continue to function with improper values.

Confidentiality, Integrity: Modify Memory, Read Memory

Use of an index that is outside the bounds of an array can also trigger out-of-bounds read or write operations, or operations on the wrong objects; i.e., “buffer overflows” are not always the result. This may result in the exposure or modification of sensitive data.

Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

If the memory accessible by the attacker can be effectively controlled, it may be possible to execute arbitrary code, as with a standard buffer overflow and possibly without the use of large inputs if a precise index can be controlled.

Integrity, Availability, Confidentiality: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Read Memory, Modify Memory

A single fault could allow either an overflow (CWE-788) or underflow (CWE-786) of the array index. What happens next will depend on the type of operation being performed out of bounds, but can expose sensitive information, cause a system crash, or possibly lead to arbitrary code execution.

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Architecture and Design

Description: 

Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).

Phase: Architecture and Design

Description: 

Phase: Requirements

Description: 

Phase: Operation

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Description: 

This is not a complete solution. However, it forces the attacker to guess an unknown value that changes every program execution. In addition, an attack could still cause a denial of service, since the typical response is to exit the application.

Phase: Operation

Effectiveness: Defense in Depth

Description: 

Use a CPU and operating system that offers Data Execution Protection (NX) or its equivalent [REF-60] [REF-61].

This is not a complete solution, since buffer overflows could be used to overwrite nearby variables to modify the software’s state in dangerous ways. In addition, it cannot be used in cases in which self-modifying code is required. Finally, an attack could still cause a denial of service, since the typical response is to exit the application.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.

Phase: Architecture and Design, Operation

Description: 

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Phase: Architecture and Design, Operation

Effectiveness: Limited

Description: 

The effectiveness of this mitigation depends on the prevention capabilities of the specific sandbox or jail being used and might only help to reduce the scope of an attack, such as restricting the attacker to certain system calls or limiting the portion of the file system that can be accessed.

CVE References

  • CVE-2001-1009
    • negative array index as argument to POP LIST command
  • CVE-2003-0721
    • Integer signedness error leads to negative array index
  • CVE-2004-1189
    • product does not properly track a count and a maximum number, which can lead to resultant array index overflow.
  • CVE-2007-5756
    • Chain: device driver for packet-capturing software allows access to an unintended IOCTL with resultant array index error.
  • CVE-2005-2456
    • Chain: array index error (CWE-129) leads to deadlock (CWE-833)

CWE-1289 – Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input

Read Time:48 Second

Description

The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-20
CWE-41
CWE-178

 

Consequences

Other: Varies by Context

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness: High

Description: 

CVE References

  • CVE-2005-0269
    • File extension check in forum software only verifies extensions that contain all lowercase letters, which allows remote attackers to upload arbitrary files via file extensions that include uppercase letters.
  • CVE-2001-1238
    • Task Manager does not allow local users to end processes with uppercase letters named (1) winlogon.exe, (2) csrss.exe, (3) smss.exe and (4) services.exe via the Process tab which could allow local users to install Trojan horses that cannot be stopped.
  • CVE-2004-2214
    • HTTP server allows bypass of access restrictions using URIs with mixed case.

CWE-1288 – Improper Validation of Consistency within Input

Read Time:31 Second

Description

The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-20

 

Consequences

Other: Varies by Context

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness: High

Description: 

CVE References

  • CVE-2018-16733
    • product does not validate that the start block appears before the end block
  • CVE-2006-3790
    • size field that is inconsistent with packet size leads to buffer over-read
  • CVE-2008-4114
    • system crash with offset value that is inconsistent with packet size

CWE-1287 – Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

Read Time:22 Second

Description

The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-20
CWE-843

 

Consequences

Other: Varies by Context

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness: High

Description: 

CVE References

  • CVE-2008-2223
    • SQL injection through an ID that was supposed to be numeric.

CWE-1286 – Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input

Read Time:22 Second

Description

The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed – i.e., to comply with a certain syntax – but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-20

 

Consequences

Other: Varies by Context

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness: High

Description: 

CVE References

  • CVE-2007-5893
    • HTTP request with missing protocol version number leads to crash

CWE-1285 – Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input

Read Time:27 Second

Description

The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.

Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-20

 

Consequences

Other: Varies by Context

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Effectiveness: High

Description: 

CVE References

  • CVE-2001-1009
    • negative array index as argument to POP LIST command