Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)

If two threads of execution use a resource simultaneously, there exists the possibility that resources may be used while invalid, in turn making the state of execution undefined.

The product logs too much information, making log files hard to process and possibly hindering recovery efforts or forensic analysis after an attack.

The product performs a comparison between entities that must consider multiple factors or characteristics of each entity, but the comparison does not include one or more of these factors.

The product does not properly handle when the expected number of values for parameters, fields, or arguments is not provided in input, or if those values are undefined.

Using realloc() to resize buffers that store sensitive information can leave the sensitive information exposed to attack, because it is not removed from memory.

The code performs a comparison between two entities, but the comparison examines the wrong factors or characteristics of the entities, which can lead to incorrect results and resultant weaknesses.

The product violates well-established principles for secure design.

The product stores security-critical state information about its users, or the product itself, in a location that is accessible to unauthorized actors.

A number or object is predictable based on observations that the attacker can make about the state of the system or network, such as time, process ID, etc.

The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.

The user interface provides a warning to a user regarding dangerous or sensitive operations, but the warning is not noticeable enough to warrant attention.

The product uses a reference count to manage a resource, but it does not update or incorrectly updates the reference count.

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "/dir/../filename" sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as wildcards or matching symbols when they are sent to a downstream component.

The product does not lock or does not correctly lock a resource when the product must have exclusive access to the resource.

The product does not follow, or incorrectly follows, the chain of trust for a certificate back to a trusted root certificate, resulting in incorrect trust of any resource that is associated with that certificate.

The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file descriptors.

The product constructs the name of a file or other resource using input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the resulting name.

The product uses a CAPTCHA challenge, but the challenge can be guessed or automatically recognized by a non-human actor.

The use of single-factor authentication can lead to unnecessary risk of compromise when compared with the benefits of a dual-factor authentication scheme.

The product requires that an actor should only be able to perform an action once, or to have only one unique action, but the product does not enforce or improperly enforces this restriction.

The web application sends a redirect to another location, but instead of exiting, it executes additional code.

The product records password hashes in a data store, receives a hash of a password from a client, and compares the supplied hash to the hash obtained from the data store.

The product does not properly handle when all or part of an input has been URL encoded.

The product allows address regions to overlap, which can result in the bypassing of intended memory protection.