Difference between revisions of "Mutable object returned"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Template:Vulnerability}}
 
{{Template:SecureSoftware}}
 
{{Template:SecureSoftware}}
  
==Overview==
+
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}'''
  
Sending non-cloned mutable data as a return value may result in that data being altered or deleted by the called function, thereby putting the class in an undefined state.
+
[[ASDR_TOC_Vulnerabilities|Vulnerabilities Table of Contents]]
  
==Consequences ==
+
==Description==
  
* Access Control / Integrity: Potentially data could be tampered with by another function which should not have been tampered with.
+
Sending non-cloned mutable data as a return value may result in that data being altered or deleted by the called function, thereby putting the class in an undefined state.
  
==Exposure period ==
+
'''Consequences'''
  
* Implementation: This flaw is a simple logic issue, introduced entirely at implementation time.
+
* Access Control / Integrity: Potentially data could be tampered with by another function which should not have been tampered with.
  
==Platform ==
+
'''Exposure period'''
  
* Languages: C,C++ or Java
+
* Implementation: This flaw is a simple logic issue, introduced entirely at implementation time.
  
* Operating platforms: Any
+
'''Platform'''
  
==Required resources ==
+
* Languages: C,C++ or Java
 +
* Operating platforms: Any
 +
 
 +
'''Required resources'''
  
 
Any
 
Any
  
==Severity ==
+
'''Severity'''
  
 
Medium
 
Medium
  
==Likelihood  of exploit ==
+
'''Likelihood  of exploit'''
  
 
Medium
 
Medium
  
==Avoidance and mitigation ==
+
In situations where functions return references to mutable data, it is possible that this external code, which called the function, may make changes to the data sent. If this data was not previously cloned, you will be left with modified data which may, or may not, be valid in the context of the class in question.
  
* Implementation: Pass in data which should not be alerted as constant or immutable.
 
  
* Implementation: Clone all mutable data before returning references to it. This is the preferred mitigation. This way, regardless of what changes are made to the data, a valid copy is retained for use by the class.
+
==Risk Factors==
  
==Discussion ==
+
* Talk about the [[OWASP Risk Rating Methodology|factors]] that make this vulnerability likely or unlikely to actually happen
 +
* Discuss the technical impact of a successful exploit of this vulnerability
 +
* Consider the likely [business impacts] of a successful attack
  
In situations where functions return references to mutable data, it is possible that this external code, which called the function, may make changes to the data sent. If this data was not previously cloned, you will be left with modified data which may, or may not, be valid in the context of the class in question.
 
  
==Examples ==
+
==Examples==
  
 
In C\C++:
 
In C\C++:
Line 67: Line 71:
 
</pre>
 
</pre>
  
==Related problems ==
 
  
Not available.
+
==Related [[Attacks]]==
  
 +
* [[Attack 1]]
 +
* [[Attack 2]]
  
[[Category:Vulnerability]]
 
  
[[Category:Synchronization and Timing Vulnerability]]
+
==Related [[Vulnerabilities]]==
  
 +
* [[Vulnerability 1]]
 +
* [[Vulnerabiltiy 2]]
 +
 +
==Related [[Controls]]==
 +
 +
* Implementation: Pass in data which should not be alerted as constant or immutable.
 +
* Implementation: Clone all mutable data before returning references to it. This is the preferred mitigation. This way, regardless of what changes are made to the data, a valid copy is retained for use by the class.
 +
 +
 +
==Related [[Technical Impacts]]==
 +
 +
* [[Technical Impact 1]]
 +
* [[Technical Impact 2]]
 +
 +
 +
==References==
 +
Note: A reference to related [http://cwe.mitre.org/ CWE] or [http://capec.mitre.org/ CAPEC] article should be added when exists. Eg:
 +
 +
* [http://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html CWE 79].
 +
* http://www.link1.com
 +
* [http://www.link2.com Title for the link2]
 +
 +
[[Category:FIXME|add links
 +
 +
In addition, one should classify vulnerability based on the following subcategories: Ex:<nowiki>[[Category:Error Handling Vulnerability]]</nowiki>
 +
 +
Availability Vulnerability
 +
 +
Authorization Vulnerability
 +
 +
Authentication Vulnerability
 +
 +
Concurrency Vulnerability
 +
 +
Configuration Vulnerability
 +
 +
Cryptographic Vulnerability
 +
 +
Encoding Vulnerability
 +
 +
Error Handling Vulnerability
 +
 +
Input Validation Vulnerability
 +
 +
Logging and Auditing Vulnerability
 +
 +
Session Management Vulnerability]]
 +
 +
__NOTOC__
 +
 +
 +
[[Category:OWASP ASDR Project]]
 +
[[Category:Vulnerability]]
 +
[[Category:Synchronization and Timing Vulnerability]]
 
[[Category:OWASP_CLASP_Project]]
 
[[Category:OWASP_CLASP_Project]]

Latest revision as of 20:41, 20 February 2009

This is a Vulnerability. To view all vulnerabilities, please see the Vulnerability Category page.



Last revision (mm/dd/yy): 02/20/2009

Vulnerabilities Table of Contents

Description

Sending non-cloned mutable data as a return value may result in that data being altered or deleted by the called function, thereby putting the class in an undefined state.

Consequences

  • Access Control / Integrity: Potentially data could be tampered with by another function which should not have been tampered with.

Exposure period

  • Implementation: This flaw is a simple logic issue, introduced entirely at implementation time.

Platform

  • Languages: C,C++ or Java
  • Operating platforms: Any

Required resources

Any

Severity

Medium

Likelihood of exploit

Medium

In situations where functions return references to mutable data, it is possible that this external code, which called the function, may make changes to the data sent. If this data was not previously cloned, you will be left with modified data which may, or may not, be valid in the context of the class in question.


Risk Factors

  • Talk about the factors that make this vulnerability likely or unlikely to actually happen
  • Discuss the technical impact of a successful exploit of this vulnerability
  • Consider the likely [business impacts] of a successful attack


Examples

In C\C++:

private:
  externalClass foo;

public:
  void doStuff() {
//..//Modify foo
    return foo;
  }

In Java:

public class foo {
 private externalClass bar = new externalClass();
 public doStuff(...){
   //..//Modify bar
   return bar;
 }


Related Attacks


Related Vulnerabilities

Related Controls

  • Implementation: Pass in data which should not be alerted as constant or immutable.
  • Implementation: Clone all mutable data before returning references to it. This is the preferred mitigation. This way, regardless of what changes are made to the data, a valid copy is retained for use by the class.


Related Technical Impacts


References

Note: A reference to related CWE or CAPEC article should be added when exists. Eg: