Difference between revisions of "Use of sizeof() on a pointer type"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Template:SecureSoftware}}
 
 
{{Template:Vulnerability}}
 
{{Template:Vulnerability}}
 +
{{Template:SecureSoftware}}
  
[[Category:FIXME|This is the text from the old template. This needs to be rewritten using the new template.]]
+
__TOC__
 +
 
 +
[[ASDR Table of Contents]]
  
  
 
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}'''
 
Last revision (mm/dd/yy): '''{{REVISIONMONTH}}/{{REVISIONDAY}}/{{REVISIONYEAR}}'''
  
[[ASDR_TOC_Vulnerabilities|Vulnerabilities Table of Contents]]
+
[[Category:FIXME|This is the text from the old template. This needs to be rewritten using the new template.]]
  
[[ASDR Table of Contents]]
 
__TOC__
 
  
  

Revision as of 12:26, 9 November 2008

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



Contents


ASDR Table of Contents


Last revision (mm/dd/yy): 11/9/2008


Description

Running sizeof() on a malloced pointer type will always return the wordsize/8.

Consequences

Authorization: This error can often cause one to allocate a buffer much smaller than what is needed and therefore other problems like a buffer overflow can be caused.

Exposure period

Implementation: This is entirely an implementation flaw.

Platform

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

Required resources

Any

Severity

High

Likelihood of exploit

High

One can in fact use the sizeof() of a pointer as useful information. An obvious case is to find out the wordsize on a platform. More often than not, the appearance of sizeof(pointer)


Risk Factors

TBD

Examples

In C/C++:

#include <stdiob.h>

int main(){
  void *foo;
  printf("%d\n",sizeof(foo)); //this will return wordsize/4
  return 0;
}


Related Attacks


Related Vulnerabilities


Related Controls

  • Implementation: Unless one is trying to leverage running sizeof() on a pointer type to gain some platform independence or if one is mallocing a variable on the stack, this should not be done.

Related Technical Impacts


References

TBD