Comprehensive CWE Dictionary

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such ...

The product, when processing trusted data, accepts any untrusted data that is also included with the trusted data, treating the untrusted data as if it were trusted.

A product's hardware-based access control check occurs after the asset has been accessed.

The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location after the end of the buffer.

The product reads or writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.

The product allocates or initializes a resource such as a pointer, object, or variable using one type, but it later accesses that resource using a type that is incompa...

The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.

The product defines a public method that reads or modifies a private variable.

The product is deployed to unauthorized actors with debugging code still enabled or active, which can create unintended entry points or expose sensitive information.

The accidental addition of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.

The product allocates file descriptors or handles on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on how many descriptors can be allocated, in violation of the...

The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be ...

The code contains a control flow path that does not reflect the algorithm that the path is intended to implement, leading to incorrect behavior any time this path is n...

The product provides an application for administrators to manage parts of the underlying operating system, but the application does not accurately identify all of the ...

The product's architecture contains too many - or too few - horizontal layers.

The product declares an array public, final, and static, which is not sufficient to prevent the array's contents from being modified.

Debugging messages help attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.

The ASP.NET application does not use, or incorrectly uses, the model validation framework.

An ASP .NET application must enable custom error pages in order to prevent attackers from mining information from the framework's built-in responses.

The ASP.NET application does not use an input validation framework.

Storing a plaintext password in a configuration file allows anyone who can read the file access to the password-protected resource making them an easy target for attac...

Configuring an ASP.NET application to run with impersonated credentials may give the application unnecessary privileges.

The code uses an operator for assignment when the intention was to perform a comparison.

The product sets a pointer to a specific address other than NULL or 0.

The variable's value is assigned but never used, making it a dead store.

Immutable data, such as a first-stage bootloader, device identifiers, and "write-once" configuration settings are stored in writable memory that can be re-programmed o...

The product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary ...

Casting a non-structure type to a structure type and accessing a field can lead to memory access errors or data corruption.

The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all ...

The authentication scheme or implementation uses key data elements that are assumed to be immutable, but can be controlled or modified by the attacker.

A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it t...

The authentication algorithm is sound, but the implemented mechanism can be bypassed as the result of a separate weakness that is primary to the authentication error.

This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.

A product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.

The product modifies the SSL context after connection creation has begun.

The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.

The product uses a database table that includes records that should not be accessible to an actor, but it executes a SQL statement with a primary key that can be contr...

The product uses an automated mechanism such as machine learning to recognize complex data inputs (e.g. image or audio) as a particular concept or category, but it doe...

A's behavior or functionality changes with a new version of A, or a new environment, which is not known (or manageable) by B.

The product assigns the address 0.0.0.0 for a database server, a cloud service/instance, or any computing resource that communicates remotely.

The product uses the size of a source buffer when reading from or writing to a destination buffer, which may cause it to access memory that is outside of the bounds of...

The product uses a sequential operation to read or write a buffer, but it uses an incorrect length value that causes it to access memory that is outside of the bounds ...

The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer, leading to a buf...

The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations after the targeted buffer.

The product reads from a buffer using buffer access mechanisms such as indexes or pointers that reference memory locations prior to the targeted buffer.

The product writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.

The product uses an API function that does not exist on all versions of the target platform. This could cause portability problems or inconsistencies that allow denial...

The product calls a thread's run() method instead of calling start(), which causes the code to run in the thread of the caller instead of the callee.

The code contains a function or method whose signature and/or associated inline documentation does not sufficiently describe the callable's inputs, outputs, ...

The product does not adequately verify the identity of actors at both ends of a communication channel, or does not adequately ensure the integrity of the channel, in a...

The code contains a class instance that calls the method or function to delete or destroy itself.

A class contains an unnecessarily large number of children.

A class has an inheritance level that is too high, i.e., it has a large number of parent classes.

A class contains a virtual method, but the method does not have an associated virtual destructor.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a file, or on disk.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in the registry.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a cookie.

The product uses an environment variable to store unencrypted sensitive information.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in an executable.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within the GUI.

The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in memory.

The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.

The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.

The product contains a clone() method that does not call super.clone() to obtain the new object.

The code contains a class with sensitive data, but the class is cloneable. The data can then be accessed by cloning the class.

The product filters data in a way that causes it to be reduced or "collapsed" into an unsafe value that violates an expected security property.

A possible shell file exists in /cgi-bin/ or other accessible directories. This is extremely dangerous and can be used by an attacker to execute commands on the web se...

The code uses an operator for comparison when the intention was to perform an assignment.

A device's real time power consumption may be monitored during security token evaluation and the information gleaned may be used to determine the value of the referenc...

The product compares classes by name, which can cause it to use the wrong class when multiple classes can have the same name.

The product performs a comparison between two entities, but the entities are of different, incompatible types that cannot be guaranteed to provide correct results when...

The product compares object references instead of the contents of the objects themselves, preventing it from detecting equivalent objects.

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 resu...

The code is compiled without sufficient warnings enabled, which may prevent the detection of subtle bugs or quality issues.

The developer builds a security-critical protection mechanism into the software, but the compiler optimizes the program such that the mechanism is removed or modified.

Sensitive memory is cleared according to the source code, but compiler optimizations leave the memory untouched when it is not read from again, aka "dead store removal."

The product contains a code sequence that can run concurrently with other code, and the code sequence requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a ...

A product performs a series of non-atomic actions to switch between contexts that cross privilege or other security boundaries, but a race condition allows an attacker...

A covert channel is a path that can be used to transfer information in a way not intended by the system's designers.

A covert storage channel transfers information through the setting of bits by one program and the reading of those bits by another. What distinguishes this case from t...

Covert timing channels convey information by modulating some aspect of system behavior over time, so that the program receiving the information can observe system beha...

The CPU is not configured to provide hardware support for exclusivity of write and execute operations on memory. This allows an attacker to execute data from all of me...

The product uses the chroot() system call to create a jail, but does not change the working directory afterward. This does not prevent access to files outside of the j...

A static code block creates an instance of a class.

The product manages resources or behaves in a way that indirectly creates a new, distinct resource that can be used by attackers in violation of the intended policy.

The product creates an immutable text string using string concatenation operations.

The product creates a temporary file in a directory whose permissions allow unintended actors to determine the file's existence or otherwise access that file.

Opening temporary files without appropriate measures or controls can leave the file, its contents and any function that it impacts vulnerable to attack.

The product declares a critical variable, field, or member to be public when intended security policy requires it to be private.

The product has a critical public variable that is not final, which allows the variable to be modified to contain unexpected values.

The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the...

Performing cryptographic operations without ensuring that the supporting inputs are ready to supply valid data may compromise the cryptographic result.

The product uses a signal handler that shares state with other signal handlers, but it does not properly mask or prevent those signal handlers from being invoked while...

If a database cursor is not closed properly, then it could become accessible to other users while retaining the same privileges that were originally assigned, leaving ...

The product is intended to manage data access through a particular data manager component such as a relational or non-SQL database, but it contains code that performs ...

The product uses a dedicated, central data manager component as required by design, but it contains code that performs data-access operations that do not use this data...

The product uses a data element that has an excessively large number of sub-elements with non-primitive data types such as structures or aggregated objects.

The code contains a data element with a pointer that does not have an associated copy or constructor method.

The product accesses a data resource through a database without using a connection pooling capability.

The product contains dead code, which can never be executed.

The product contains multiple threads or executable segments that are waiting for each other to release a necessary lock, resulting in deadlock.

The product fails to adequately prevent the revealing of unnecessary and potentially sensitive system information within debugging messages.

Catching overly broad exceptions promotes complex error handling code that is more likely to contain security vulnerabilities.

Throwing overly broad exceptions promotes complex error handling code that is more likely to contain security vulnerabilities.

The source code declares a variable in one scope, but the variable is only used within a narrower scope.

The accidental deletion of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.

The product has a dependency on a third-party component that contains one or more known vulnerabilities.

The wrong "handler" is assigned to process an object.

The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently verifying that the resulting data will be valid.

The product detects a specific error, but takes no actions to handle the error.

The credentials necessary for unlocking a device are shared across multiple parties and may expose sensitive information.

The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.

When a Java application uses the Java Native Interface (JNI) to call code written in another programming language, it can expose the application to weaknesses in that ...

The product divides a value by zero.

The product enables a Direct Memory Access (DMA) capable device before the security configuration settings are established, which allows an attacker to extract data fr...

The product decodes the same input twice, which can limit the effectiveness of any protection mechanism that occurs in between the decoding operations.

The product calls free() twice on the same memory address, potentially leading to modification of unexpected memory locations.

The product uses double-checked locking to access a resource without the overhead of explicit synchronization, but the locking is insufficient.

The web application does not filter user-controlled input for executable script disguised using doubling of the involved characters.

The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.

Duplicate keys in associative lists can lead to non-unique keys being mistaken for an error.

In a language where the user can influence the name of a variable at runtime, if the variable names are not controlled, an attacker can read or write to arbitrary vari...

The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using AWT/Swing.

The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using the class loader.

The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using the java.io package.

The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using sockets.

The product violates the Enterprise JavaBeans (EJB) specification by using thread synchronization primitives.

The product contains code that appears to be malicious in nature.

The source code contains a block that does not contain any code, i.e., the block is empty.

An invokable code block contains an exception handling block that does not contain any code, i.e. is empty.

Using an empty string as a password is insecure.

The product contains an empty synchronized block.

The product does not properly encode or decode the data, resulting in unexpected values.

The product has an attack surface whose quantitative measurement exceeds a desirable maximum.

The code is too complex, as calculated using a well-defined, quantitative measure.

The product performs a data query with a large number of joins and sub-queries on a large data table.

The product contains a data query against an SQL table or view that is configured in a way that does not utilize an index and may cause sequential searches t...

The code is structured in a way that a Halstead complexity measure exceeds a desirable maximum.

The product contains an index range scan for a large data table, but the scan can cover a large number of rows.

The product performs an iteration or loop without sufficiently limiting the number of times that the loop is executed.

The code contains McCabe cyclomatic complexity that exceeds a desirable maximum.

The product performs too many data queries without using efficient data processing functionality such as stored procedures.

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, l...

The code is structured in a way that relies too much on using or setting global variables throughout various points in the code, instead of preserving the as...

The product initializes a data element using a hard-coded literal that is not a simple integer or static constant element.

The product uses too much self-modifying code.

The code uses too many unconditional branches (such as "goto").

The product uses an unnecessarily complex internal representation for its data structures or interrelationships between those structures.

The code contains a callable or other code grouping in which the nesting / branching is too deep.

The product uses a regular expression that either (1) contains an executable component with user-controlled inputs, or (2) allows a user to enable execution by inserti...

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

The product performs an operation at a privilege level that is higher than the minimum level required, which creates new weaknesses or amplifies the consequences of ot...

A feature, API, or function does not perform according to its specification.

The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.

The product makes an explicit call to the finalize() method from outside the finalizer.

The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous meth...

The product implements an IOCTL with functionality that should be restricted, but it does not properly enforce access control for the IOCTL.

An ActiveX control is intended for use in a web browser, but it exposes dangerous methods that perform actions that are outside of the browser's security model (e.g. t...

The product stores access control list files in a directory or other container that is accessible to actors outside of the intended control sphere.

A backup file is stored in a directory or archive that is made accessible to unauthorized actors.

The product generates a core dump file in a directory, archive, or other resource that is stored, transferred, or otherwise made accessible to unauthorized actors.

The product does not sufficiently enforce boundaries between the states of different sessions, causing data to be provided to, or used by, the wrong session.

A process does not close sensitive file descriptors before invoking a child process, which allows the child to perform unauthorized I/O operations using those descript...

A directory listing is inappropriately exposed, yielding potentially sensitive information to attackers.

A command shell error message indicates that there exists an unhandled exception in the web application code. In many cases, an attacker can leverage the conditions th...

The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the...

The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.

A processor event or prediction may allow incorrect or stale data to be forwarded to transient operations, potentially exposing data over a covert channel.

Shared microarchitectural predictor state may allow code to influence transient execution across a hardware boundary, potentially exposing data that is accessi...

The product's intended functionality exposes information to certain actors in accordance with the developer's security policy, but this information is regarded as sens...

A processor event or prediction may allow incorrect operations (or correct operations with incorrect data) to execute transiently, potentially exposing data over a cov...

A processor event may allow transient operations to access architecturally restricted data (for example, in another address space) in a shared microarchitect...

When trying to keep information confidential, an attacker can often infer some of the information by using statistics.

The product prevents direct access to a resource containing sensitive information, but it does not sufficiently limit access to metadata that is derived from the origi...

The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.

The hardware does not fully clear security-sensitive values, such as keys and intermediate values in cryptographic operations, when debug mode is entered.

The product does not properly prevent sensitive system-level information from being accessed by unauthorized actors who do not have the same level of access to the und...

The product stores a CVS, git, or other repository in a directory, archive, or other resource that is stored, transferred, or otherwise made accessible to unauthorized...

The Web services architecture may require exposing a Web Service Definition Language (WSDL) file that contains information on the publicly accessible services and how ...

The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to false.

The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to true.

The web application does not sufficiently verify inputs that are assumed to be immutable but are actually externally controllable, such as hidden form fields.

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

The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.

The product does not prevent the definition of control spheres from external actors.

The product initializes critical internal variables or data stores using inputs that can be modified by untrusted actors.

The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.

The product performs an operation that triggers an external diagnostic or error message that is not directly generated or controlled by the product, such as an error g...

The address map of the on-chip fabric has protected and unprotected regions overlapping, allowing an attacker to bypass access control to the overlapping portion of th...

The reserved bits in a hardware design are not disabled prior to production. Typically, reserved bits are used for future capabilities and should not support any funct...

The product does not properly handle when a particular element is not completely specified.

If too few arguments are sent to a function, the function will still pop the expected number of arguments from the stack. Potentially, a variable number of arguments c...

The product does not properly handle the characters that are used to mark the beginning and ending of a group of entities, such as parentheses, brackets, and braces.

The product does not adequately filter user-controlled input for special elements with control implications.

The product makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.

The product violates secure coding principles for mobile code by declaring a finalize() method public.

The product contains a finalize() method that does not call super.finalize().

The product does not provide its users with the ability to update or patch its firmware to address any vulnerabilities or weaknesses that may be present.

The code performs a comparison such as an equality test between two float (floating point) values, but it uses comparison operators that do not account...

The product calls free() on a pointer to memory that was not allocated using associated heap allocation functions such as malloc(), calloc(), or realloc().

The product calls free() on a pointer to a memory resource that was allocated on the heap, but the pointer is not at the start of the buffer.

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies an argument that is the wrong data type, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies too many arguments, or too few arguments, which may lead to undefined behavior and result...

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies the arguments in an incorrect order, leading to resultant weaknesses.

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies the wrong variable or reference as one of the arguments, which may lead to undefined beha...

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine, but the caller specifies an argument that contains the wrong value, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.

The product calls a function, procedure, or routine with arguments that are not correctly specified, leading to always-incorrect behavior and resultant weaknesses.

The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.

The product implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. However, the Se...

The product generates and uses a predictable initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode, which causes algorithms to be susceptible to dictionary ...

The product uses a scheme that generates numbers or identifiers that are more predictable than required.

The product uses a cryptographic primitive that uses an Initialization Vector (IV), but the product does not generate IVs that are sufficiently unpredictable or ...

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

During runtime, the hardware allows for test or debug logic (feature) to be activated, which allows for changing the state of the hardware. This feature can alter the ...

Signals between a hardware IP and the parent system design are incorrectly connected causing security risks.

System configuration protection may be bypassed during debug mode.

A race condition in the hardware logic results in undermining security guarantees of the system.

The hardware logic for error handling and security checks can incorrectly forward data before the security check is complete.

A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer ...

The product contains functionality that is not documented, not part of the specification, and not accessible through an interface or command sequence that is obvious t...

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.

Aliased or mirrored memory regions in hardware designs may have inconsistent read/write permissions enforced by the hardware. A possible result is that an untrusted ag...

The product uses memory-mapped I/O registers that act as an interface to hardware functionality from software, but there is improper access control to those registers.

The product conducts a secure-boot process that transfers bootloader code from Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) into Volatile Memory (VM), but it does not have sufficient acc...

The product uses a fabric bridge for transactions between two Intellectual Property (IP) blocks, but the bridge does not properly perform the expected privilege, ident...

The product defines an IOCTL that uses METHOD_NEITHER for I/O, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates the addresses that are provided.

The product does not follow certain coding rules for development, which can lead to resultant weaknesses or increase the severity of the associated vulnerabilities.

When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.

The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

The product uses a handler for a custom URL scheme, but it does not properly restrict which actors can invoke the handler using the scheme.

The product creates a search index of private or sensitive documents, but it does not properly limit index access to actors who are authorized to see the original info...

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

The product does not check or incorrectly checks the revocation status of a certificate, which may cause it to use a certificate that has been compromised.

The product attempts to drop privileges but does not check or incorrectly checks to see if the drop succeeded.

The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the pro...

The product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product.

The product does not clean up its state or incorrectly cleans up its state when an exception is thrown, leading to unexpected state or control flow.

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 product does not maintain or incorrectly maintains control over a resource throughout its lifetime of creation, use, and release.

The product does not restrict a reference to a Document Type Definition (DTD) to the intended control sphere. This might allow attackers to reference arbitrary DTDs, p...

The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-identified variables.

The product does not properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-managed code resources such as variables, objects, classes, attributes, functions, or exe...

The PHP application receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before its usage in "require," "include," or...

The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralize...

The product does not properly limit the number or frequency of interactions that it has with an actor, such as the number of incoming requests.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource th...

The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a re...

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 enf...

The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in ...

The product establishes a communication channel with an endpoint and receives a message from that endpoint, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the message was no...

The Android application exports a component for use by other applications, but does not properly restrict which applications can launch the component or access the dat...

The product receives data from an upstream component, but does not filter or incorrectly filters special elements before sending it to a downstream component.

Faulty finite state machines (FSMs) in the hardware logic allow an attacker to put the system in an undefined state, to cause a denial of service (DoS) or gain privile...

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 resou...

The product does not follow or incorrectly follows the specifications as required by the implementation language, environment, framework, protocol, or platform.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles when an additional unexpected special element is provided.

The product does not properly handle when an input uses an alternate encoding that is valid for the control sphere to which the input is being sent.

The product does not properly handle special paths that may identify the data or resource fork of a file on the HFS+ file system.

The product does not properly account for differences in case sensitivity when accessing or determining the properties of a resource, leading to inconsistent results.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles an exceptional condition.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when the number of parameters, fields, or arguments with the same name exceeds the expected amount.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when more values are provided than expected.

The device is missing or incorrectly implements circuitry or sensors that detect and mitigate the skipping of security-critical CPU instructions when they occur.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a file name that identifies a "virtual" resource that is not directly specified within the directory that is associa...

A hardware device, or the firmware running on it, is missing or has incorrect protection features to maintain goals of security primiti...

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles a compressed input with a very high compression ratio that produces a large output.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular structural element is not completely specified.

The product does not properly handle input in which an inconsistency exists between two or more special characters or reserved words.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when two or more structural elements should be consistent, but are not.

True random number generators (TRNG) generally have a limited source of entropy and therefore can fail or block.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may...

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to perform an operation, leading to resultant weaknesses.

The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect...

The product parses a formatted message or structure, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a length field that is inconsistent with the actual length of the as...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles when an expected special element is missing.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a parameter, field, or argument name is specified, but the associated value is missing, i.e. it is empty, blank...

The product does not properly handle when the same input uses several different (mixed) encodings.

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

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

The product does not properly handle unexpected physical or environmental conditions that occur naturally or are artificially induced.

The hardware logic does not effectively handle when single-event upsets (SEUs) occur.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles inputs that are related to complex structures.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles input that is not syntactically well-formed with respect to the associated specification.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular parameter, field, or argument name is not defined or supported by the product.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a value is not defined or supported for the associated parameter, field, or argument name.

The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when a particular element is not the expected type, e.g. it expects a digit (0-9) but is provided with a letter (A-Z).

The product does not properly handle when an input contains Unicode encoding.

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

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.

The product does not properly prevent access to, or detect usage of, alternate data streams (ADS).

The product constructs pathnames from user input, but it does not handle or incorrectly handles a pathname containing a Windows device name such as AUX or CON. This ty...

The System-on-Chip (SoC) does not have unique, immutable identifiers for each of its components.

The product does not initialize or incorrectly initializes a resource, which might leave the resource in an unexpected state when it is accessed or used.

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process th...

An interaction error occurs when two entities have correct behavior when running independently of each other, but when they are integrated as components in a larger sy...

The Network On Chip (NoC) does not isolate or incorrectly isolates its on-chip-fabric and internal resources such that they are shared between trusted and untrusted ag...

The System-On-a-Chip (SoC) does not properly isolate shared resources between trusted and untrusted agents.

The product does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions.

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but ...

The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an uni...

Register lock bit protection disables changes to system configuration once the bit is set. Some of the protected registers or lock bits become programmable after power...

The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Trace data collected from several sources on the System-on-Chip (SoC) is stored in unprotected locations or transported to untrusted ag...

The product does not ensure or incorrectly ensures that structured messages or data are well-formed and that certain security properties are met before being read from...

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controlled input for alternate script syntax.

The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as comment deli...

The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF ...

The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF charac...

The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XPath expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neut...

The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XQuery expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neu...

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before inserting the input into an executable ...

The web application improperly neutralizes user-controlled input for executable script disguised with URI encodings.

The product correctly neutralizes certain special elements, but it improperly neutralizes equivalent special elements.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as escape, meta...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as expression o...

The product saves user-provided information into a Comma-Separated Value (CSV) file, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could ...

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes web scripting syntax in HTTP headers that can be used by web browser components that can process raw headers...

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.

The product does not properly handle when a leading character or sequence ("leader") is missing or malformed, or if multiple leaders are used when only one should be a...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as input termin...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes internal special elements that could be interpreted in une...

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes invalid characters or byte sequences in the middle of tag names, URI schemes, and other identifiers.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes leading special elements that could be interpreted in unex...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as line delimit...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as macro symbol...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes multiple internal special elements that could be interpret...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes multiple leading special elements that could be interprete...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes multiple trailing special elements that could be interpret...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downs...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as parameter or...

Quotes injected into a product can be used to compromise a system. As data are parsed, an injected/absent/duplicate/malformed use of quotes may cause the process to ta...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as record delim...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters that could be interpreted as web-script...

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes "javascript:" or other URIs from dangerous attributes within tags, such as onmouseover, onload, onerror, or ...

The web application does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes scripting elements within attributes of HTML IMG tags, such as the src attribute.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters such as "<", ">", and "&" that could be...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as section deli...

The product generates a web page, but does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input that could be interpreted as a server-side include (SSI) d...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as control elem...

The product generates a query intended to access or manipulate data in a data store such as a database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special e...

The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or ...

The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes spe...

The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax t...

The product constructs all or part of an expression language (EL) statement in a framework such as a Java Server Page (JSP) using externally-influenced input from an u...

The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes...

The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes...

The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralize...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as substitution...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes trailing special elements that could be interpreted in une...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as value delimi...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as variable nam...

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as whitespace w...

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...

The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.

The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes output that is written to logs.

The product assigns the wrong ownership, or does not properly verify the ownership, of an object or resource.

The product is designed with access restricted to certain information, but it does not sufficiently protect against an unauthorized actor with physical access to these...

The product has or supports multiple distributed components or sub-systems that are each required to keep their own local copy of shared data - such as state or cache ...

The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restricti...

The product uses a trusted lock bit for restricting access to registers, address regions, or other resources, but the product does not prevent the value of the lock bi...

The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

The device is susceptible to electromagnetic fault injection attacks, causing device internal information to be compromised or security mechanisms to be bypassed.

The device does not contain or contains incorrectly implemented circuitry or sensors to detect and mitigate voltage and clock glitches and protect sensitive informatio...

Untrusted agents can disable alerts about signal conditions exceeding limits or the response mechanism that handles such alerts.

The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.

A hardware device is missing or has inadequate protection features to prevent overheating.

The product stores, transfers, or shares a resource that contains sensitive information, but it does not properly remove that information before the product makes the ...

The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory na...

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 release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.

The product establishes a communication channel to (or from) an endpoint for privileged or protected operations, but it does not properly ensure that it is communicati...

The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame, making it more susceptible to brute fo...

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 performs operations on a memory buffer, but it can read from or write to a memory location that is outside of the intended boundary of the buffer.

The product operates in an environment in which power is a limited resource that cannot be automatically replenished, but the product does not properly restrict the am...

The product uses XML documents and allows their structure to be defined with a Document Type Definition (DTD), but it does not properly control the number of recursive...

The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain, which can lead to user confusio...

The System-On-A-Chip (SoC) implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. ...

The product provides software-controllable device functionality for capabilities such as power and clock management, but it does not properly limit functional...

The hardware design control register "sticky bits" or write-once bit fields are improperly implemented, such that they can be reprogrammed by software.

The product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product ...

The product does not properly provide a capability for the product administrator to remove sensitive data at the time the product is decommissioned. A scrubbing capab...

The bus controller enables bits in the fabric end-point to allow responder devices to control transactions on the fabric.

The product utilizes multiple threads or processes to allow temporary access to a shared resource that can only be exclusive to one process at a time, but it does not ...

The bridge incorrectly translates security attributes from either trusted to untrusted or from untrusted to trusted when converting from one fabric protocol to another.

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

The product does not use, or incorrectly uses, an input validation framework that is provided by the source language or an independent library.

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 ref...

A certificate expiration is not validated or is incorrectly validated, so trust may be assigned to certificates that have been abandoned due to age.

The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.

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 t...

The product adds hooks to user-accessible API functions, but it does not properly validate the arguments. This could lead to resultant vulnerabilities.

The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been ...

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 i...

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the...

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.

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 inpu...

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 ...

The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.

The Android application uses a Broadcast Receiver that receives an Intent but does not properly verify that the Intent came from an authorized source.

The product establishes a communication channel to handle an incoming request that has been initiated by an actor, but it does not properly verify that the request is ...

The product does not implement or incorrectly implements wear leveling operations in limited-write non-volatile memories.

The hardware product does not properly clear sensitive information from built-in registers when the user of the hardware block changes.

The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but...

The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies attributes that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control mo...

The product manages a group of objects or resources and performs a separate memory allocation for each object, but it does not properly limit the total amount of memor...

The product does not implement or incorrectly implements one or more security-relevant checks as specified by the design of a standardized algorithm, protocol, or tech...

The product performs a power save/restore operation, but it does not ensure that the integrity of the configuration state is maintained and/or ...

The source code contains comments that do not accurately describe or explain aspects of the portion of the code with which the comment is associated.

The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.

The source code uses comment styles or formats that are inconsistent or do not follow expected standards for the product.

The product uses or specifies an encoding when generating output to a downstream component, but the specified encoding is not the same as the encoding that is expected...

The source code does not follow desired style or formatting for indentation, white space, comments, etc.

The source code contains whitespace that is inconsistent across the code or does not follow expected standards for the product.

The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.

If an include file source is accessible, the file can contain usernames and passwords, as well as sensitive information pertaining to the application and system.

Source code on a web server or repository often contains sensitive information and should generally not be accessible to users.

While adding general comments is very useful, some programmers tend to leave important data, such as: filenames related to the web application, old links or links whic...

Accessible test applications can pose a variety of security risks. Since developers or administrators rarely consider that someone besides themselves would even know a...

The device includes chicken bits or undocumented features that can create entry points for unauthorized actors.

The product includes web functionality (such as a web widget) from another domain, which causes it to operate within the domain of the product, potentially granting to...

The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.

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 mo...

The product uses a denylist-based protection mechanism to defend against XSS attacks, but the denylist is incomplete, allowing XSS variants to succeed.

The product's design documentation does not adequately describe control flow, data flow, system initialization, relationships between tasks, components, rati...

The document does not fully define all mechanisms that are used to control or influence how product-specific programs are executed.

The product receives data from an upstream component, but does not filter all instances of a special element before sending it to a downstream component.

The product receives data from an upstream component, but does not completely filter one or more instances of special elements before sending it to a downstream compon...

The product receives data from an upstream component, but does not completely filter special elements before sending it to a downstream component.

The product's documentation does not adequately define inputs, outputs, or system/software interfaces.

The PHP application uses an old method for processing uploaded files by referencing the four global variables that are set for each file (e.g. $varname, $varname_size,...

The product does not properly determine which state it is in, causing it to assume it is in state X when in fact it is in state Y, causing it to perform incorrect oper...

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other actio...

A product acts as an intermediary or monitor between two or more endpoints, but it does not have a complete model of an endpoint's features, behaviors, or state, poten...

The implementation of the product is not consistent with the design as described within the relevant documentation.

The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but i...

The product's code, documentation, or other artifacts do not consistently use the same naming conventions for variables, callables, groups of related callabl...

The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts operations within the boundaries of a resource that is accessed using an index or pointer, such as memory or files.

The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. This allows ...

The product performs multiple related behaviors, but the behaviors are performed in the wrong order in ways which may produce resultant weaknesses.

If a web server does not fully parse requested URLs before it examines them for authorization, it may be possible for an attacker to bypass authorization protection.

The product allows an entity to perform a legitimate but expensive operation before authentication or authorization has taken place.

The product validates input before applying protection mechanisms that modify the input, which could allow an attacker to bypass the validation via dangerous inputs th...

The product validates input before it is canonicalized, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the canonicalization step.

The product validates data before it has been filtered, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the filtering step.

An integer value is specified to be shifted by a negative amount or an amount greater than or equal to the number of bits contained in the value causing an unexpected ...

The code does not explicitly delimit a block that is intended to contain 2 or more statements, creating a logic error.

The product performs a calculation that generates incorrect or unintended results that are later used in security-critical decisions or resource management.

The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.

The product does not correctly calculate the length of strings that can contain wide or multi-byte characters.

The product's debug components contain incorrect chaining or granularity of debug components.

The product incorrectly checks a return value from a function, which prevents it from detecting errors or exceptional conditions.

The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.

The product's comparison logic is performed over a series of steps rather than across the entire string in one operation. If there is a comparison logic failure on one...

The product does not properly return control flow to the proper location after it has completed a task or detected an unusual condition.

When converting from one data type to another, such as long to integer, data can be omitted or translated in a way that produces unexpected values. If the resulting va...

The product implements a conversion mechanism to map certain bus-transaction signals to security identifiers. However, if the conversion is incorrectly implemented, un...

The product implements a decoding mechanism to decode certain bus-transaction signals to security identifiers. If the decoding is implemented incorrectly, then untrust...

During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.

While it is executing, the product sets the permissions of an object in a way that violates the intended permissions that have been specified by the user.

The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.

The product attempts to initialize a resource but does not correctly do so, which might leave the resource in an unexpected, incorrect, or insecure state when it is ac...

The product assigns an owner to a resource, but the owner is outside of the intended control sphere.

The product parses numeric input assuming base 10 (decimal) values, but it does not account for inputs that use a different base number (radix).

The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.

In C and C++, one may often accidentally refer to the wrong memory due to the semantics of when math operations are implicitly scaled.

A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.

The code does not function according to its published specifications, potentially leading to incorrect usage.

Hardware description language code incorrectly defines register defaults or hardware Intellectual Property (IP) parameters to insecure values.

The product specifies a regular expression in a way that causes data to be improperly matched or compared.

The product does not properly transfer a resource/behavior to another sphere, or improperly imports a resource/behavior from another sphere, in a manner that provides ...

The logic level used to set a system to a secure state relies on a fuse being unblown. An attacker can set the system to an insecure state merely by blowing the fuse.

The product contains a conditional statement with multiple logical expressions in which one of the non-leading expressions may produce side effects. This may lead to a...

The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner, but it does not correctly synchronize access to the resource.

The product does not correctly convert an object, resource, or structure from one type to a different type.

The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.

The code uses boxed primitives, which may introduce inefficiencies into performance-critical operations.

The product does not conform to the API requirements for a function call that requires extra privileges. This could allow attackers to gain privileges by causing the f...

The product does not properly manage a user within its environment.

The product creates a communication channel to initiate an outgoing request to an actor, but it does not correctly specify the intended destination for that actor.

An algorithm in a product has an inefficient worst-case computational complexity that may be detrimental to system performance and can be triggered by an attacker, typ...

The product performs CPU computations using algorithms that are not as efficient as they could be for the needs of the developer, i.e., the computati...

The product uses a regular expression with an inefficient, possibly exponential worst-case computational complexity that consumes excessive CPU cycles.

The processor does not properly clear microarchitectural state after incorrect microcode assists or speculative execution, resulting in transient execution.

The product does not record, or improperly records, security-relevant information that leads to an incorrect decision or hampers later analysis.

The product initializes or sets a resource with a default that is intended to be changed by the administrator, but the default is not secure.

The product initializes data using hard-coded values that act as network resource identifiers.

The product uses a mechanism that automatically optimizes code, e.g. to improve a characteristic such as performance, but the optimizations can have an unintended side...

The product, by default, initializes an internal variable with an insecure or less secure value than is possible.

A product defines a set of insecure permissions that are inherited by objects that are created by the program.

The product opens a file or directory, but it does not properly prevent the name from being associated with a junction or mount point to a destination that is outside ...

A product inherits a set of insecure permissions for an object, e.g. when copying from an archive file, without user awareness or involvement.

The System-on-Chip (SoC) implements a Security Identifier mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entit...

The product stores sensitive information without properly limiting read or write access by unauthorized actors.

Creating and using insecure temporary files can leave application and system data vulnerable to attack.

The product inserts sensitive information into debugging code, which could expose this information if the debugging code is not disabled in production.

The product places sensitive information into files or directories that are accessible to actors who are allowed to have access to the files, but not to the sensitive ...

Information written to log files can be of a sensitive nature and give valuable guidance to an attacker or expose sensitive user information.

The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.

The product's architecture, source code, design, documentation, or other artifact does not follow required conventions.

The code does not sufficiently manage its control flow during execution, creating conditions in which the control flow can be modified in unexpected ways.

The product does not sufficiently monitor or control transmitted network traffic volume, so that an actor can cause the product to transmit more traffic than should be...

The documentation does not sufficiently describe the techniques that are used for error handling, exception processing, or similar mechanisms.

The product does not sufficiently hide the internal representation and implementation details of data or methods, which might allow external components or modules to m...

The product or code uses machine-dependent functionality, but it does not sufficiently encapsulate or isolate this functionality from the rest of the code.

The product uses an algorithm or scheme that produces insufficient entropy, leaving patterns or clusters of values that are more likely to occur than others.

The lack of entropy available for, or used by, a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) can be a stability and security threat.

The product implements access controls via a policy or other feature with the intention to disable or restrict accesses (reads and/or writes) to assets in a system fro...

The product defines a large address region protected from modification by the same register lock control bit. This results in a conflict between the functional require...

The source code uses symbolic constants, but it does not sufficiently place the definitions of these constants into a more centralized or isolated location.

The product or code does not isolate system-dependent functionality into separate standalone modules.

When a security-critical event occurs, the product either does not record the event or omits important details about the event when logging it.

The product's data removal process does not completely delete all data and potentially sensitive information within hardware components.

The product processes a real number with an implementation in which the number's representation does not preserve required accuracy and precision in its fractional par...

The product has a protection mechanism that is too difficult or inconvenient to use, encouraging non-malicious users to disable or bypass the mechanism, whether by acc...

The product's resource pool is not large enough to handle peak demand, which allows an attacker to prevent others from accessing the resource by using a (relatively) l...

According to WASC, "Insufficient Session Expiration is when a web site permits an attacker to reuse old session credentials or session IDs for authorization."

The product does not contain sufficient technical or engineering documentation (whether on paper or in electronic form) that contains descriptions of...

The product does not properly distinguish between different types of elements in a way that leads to insecure behavior.

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 source code uses literal constants that may need to change or evolve over time, instead of using symbolic constants.

The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.

The product displays information or identifiers to a user, but the display mechanism does not make it easy for the user to distinguish between visually similar or iden...

The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.

Integer coercion refers to a set of flaws pertaining to the type casting, extension, or truncation of primitive data types.

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound, when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the o...

The product performs a calculation to determine how much memory to allocate, but an integer overflow can occur that causes less memory to be allocated than expected, l...

The product subtracts one value from another, such that the result is less than the minimum allowable integer value, which produces a value that is not equal to the co...

The product uses physical debug or test interfaces with support for multiple access levels, but it assigns the wrong debug access level to an internal ...

Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.

The code at one architectural layer invokes code that resides at a deeper layer than the adjacent layer, i.e., the invocation skips at least one layer, and t...

A process is invoked with sensitive command-line arguments, environment variables, or other elements that can be seen by other processes on the operating system.

The code contains a function or method that operates in a multi-threaded environment but owns an unsafe non-final static storable or member d...

A function or method contains too many operations that utilize a data manager or file resource.

A function, method, procedure, etc. contains an excessive amount of code that has been commented out within its body.

The code contains callable control elements that contain an excessively large number of references to other application objects external to the conte...

The product contains a function, subroutine, or method whose signature has an unnecessarily large number of parameters/arguments.

A named-callable or method control element has a signature that supports a variable (variadic) number of parameters or arguments.

The product contains code that is not essential for execution, i.e. makes no state changes and has no side effects that alter data or control flow, such th...

The J2EE application directly manages connections, instead of using the container's connection management facilities.

The J2EE application directly uses sockets instead of using framework method calls.

Thread management in a Web application is forbidden in some circumstances and is always highly error prone.

The product stores a non-serializable object as an HttpSession attribute, which can hurt reliability.

A J2EE application uses System.exit(), which also shuts down its container.

When the J2EE container attempts to write unserializable objects to disk there is no guarantee that the process will complete successfully.

Information sent over a network can be compromised while in transit. An attacker may be able to read or modify the contents if the data are sent in plaintext or are we...

When an application exposes a remote interface for an entity bean, it might also expose methods that get or set the bean's data. These methods could be leveraged to re...

The J2EE application is configured to use an insufficient session ID length.

The default error page of a web application should not display sensitive information about the product.

The J2EE application stores a plaintext password in a configuration file.

If elevated access rights are assigned to EJB methods, then an attacker can take advantage of the permissions to exploit the product.

In many cases, an attacker can leverage the conditions that cause unhandled exception errors in order to gain unauthorized access to the system.

The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.

The product uses security features in a way that prevents the product's administrator from tailoring security settings to reflect the environment in which the product ...

The product uses a large data table that contains an excessively large number of indices.

The elevated privilege level required to perform operations such as chroot() should be dropped immediately after the operation is performed.

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 contains code that is designed to disrupt the legitimate operation of the product (or its environment) when a certain time passes, or when a certain logica...

The product uses a loop with a control flow condition based on a value that is updated within the body of the loop.

The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.

The product allocates memory based on an untrusted, large size value, but it does not ensure that the size is within expected limits, allowing arbitrary amounts of mem...

A method for a class performs an operation that directly accesses a member element from another class.

The product's architecture mirrors regions without ensuring that their contents always stay in sync.

The product misinterprets an input, whether from an attacker or another product, in a security-relevant fashion.

The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls a release function that is not compatible with the function that was originally used to al...

Missing an ability to patch ROM code may leave a System or System-on-Chip (SoC) in a vulnerable state.

The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

The product does not check the revocation status of a certificate after its initial revocation check, which can cause the product to perform privileged actions even af...

The product implements an authentication technique, but it skips a step that weakens the technique.

The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.

The product does not return custom error pages to the user, possibly exposing sensitive information.

The code does not have a default case in an expression with multiple conditions, such as a switch statement.

The product does not have documentation that represents how it is designed.

The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.

A handler is not available or implemented.

A missing immutable root of trust in the hardware results in the ability to bypass secure boot or execute untrusted or adversarial boot code.

The product does not initialize critical variables, which causes the execution environment to use unexpected values.

The product does not initialize a critical resource.

A product does not check to see if a lock is present before performing sensitive operations on a resource.

The product uses a WebSocket, but it does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.

The product does not mask passwords during entry, increasing the potential for attackers to observe and capture passwords.

Information stored in hardware may be recovered by an attacker with the capability to capture and analyze images of the integrated circuit using techniques such as sca...

The firewall in an on-chip fabric protects the main addressed region, but it does not protect any mirrored memory or memory-mapped-IO (MMIO) regions.

The lack of protections on alternate paths to access control-protected assets (such as unprotected shadow registers and other external ...

The product does not properly maintain a reference to a resource that has been allocated, which prevents the resource from being reclaimed.

The product does not properly maintain references to a file descriptor or handle, which prevents that file descriptor/handle from being reclaimed.

The product does not release a file descriptor or handle after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the file descriptor/handle is no longer needed.

The product does not sufficiently track and release allocated memory after it has been used, which slowly consumes remaining memory.

The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.

The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.

The product contains a serializable data element that does not have an associated serialization method.

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

The product implements a security identifier mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. A transact...

The product does not use a standardized method for handling errors throughout the code, which might introduce inconsistent error handling and resultant weaknesses.

The product uses a transmission protocol that does not include a mechanism for verifying the integrity of the data during transmission, such as a checksum.

On-chip fabrics or buses either do not support or are not configured to support privilege separation or other security features, such as access control.

The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner but does not attempt to synchronize access to the resource.

The product uses OpenSSL and trusts or uses a certificate without using the SSL_get_verify_result() function to ensure that the certificate satisfies all necessary sec...

The device does not write-protect the parametric data values for sensors that scale the sensor value, allowing untrusted software to manipulate the apparent result and...

The product accepts XML from an untrusted source but does not validate the XML against the proper schema.

The product does not properly protect an assumed-immutable element from being modified by an attacker.

The product contains modules in which one module has references that cycle back to itself, i.e., there are circular dependencies.

When multiple sockets are allowed to bind to the same port, other services on that port may be stolen or spoofed.

The product contains a class with inheritance from more than one concrete class.

The UI has multiple interpretations of user input but does not prompt the user when it selects the less secure interpretation.

The product locks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.

The product performs the same operation on a resource two or more times, when the operation should only be applied once.

The product attempts to close or release a resource or handle more than once, without any successful open between the close operations.

The product unlocks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.

The register contents used for attestation or measurement reporting data to verify boot flow are modifiable by an adversary.

Allowing a .NET application to run at potentially escalated levels of access to the underlying operating and file systems can be dangerous and result in various forms ...

The product does not exit or otherwise modify its operation when security-relevant errors occur during initialization, such as when a configuration file has a format e...

Non-replicating malicious code only resides on the target system or product that is attacked; it does not attempt to spread to other systems.

The product contains a client with a function or method that contains a large number of data accesses/queries that are sent through a data manager, i.e., does not use ...

Hardware structures shared across execution contexts (e.g., caches and branch predictors) can violate the expected architecture isolation between contexts.

When the product encounters an error condition or failure, its design requires it to fall back to a state that is less secure than other options that are available, su...

The product does not perform access checks on a resource every time the resource is accessed by an entity, which can create resultant weaknesses if that entity's right...

The product does not have a mechanism in place for managing password aging.

The product does not properly handle null bytes or NUL characters when passing data between different representations or components.

A NULL pointer dereference occurs when the application dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid, but is NULL, typically causing a crash or exit.

The product checks a value to ensure that it is less than or equal to a maximum, but it does not also verify that the value is greater than or equal to the minimum.

Truncation errors occur when a primitive is cast to a primitive of a smaller size and data is lost in the conversion.

The product does not maintain equal hashcodes for equal objects.

The product records security-relevant information according to an alternate name of the affected entity, instead of the canonical name.

The product's behaviors indicate important differences that may be observed by unauthorized actors in a way that reveals (1) its internal state or decision process, or...

The product operates in an environment in which its existence or specific identity should not be known, but it behaves differently than other products with equivalent ...

The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor, which exposes security...

The product performs multiple behaviors that are combined to produce a single result, but the individual behaviors are observable separately in a way that allows attac...

The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control...

Two separate operations in a product require different amounts of time to complete, in a way that is observable to an actor and reveals security-relevant information a...

A UI function is obsolete and the product does not warn the user.

A product calculates or uses an incorrect maximum or minimum value that is 1 more, or 1 less, than the correct value.

The product does not record or display information that would be important for identifying the source or nature of an attack, or determining if an action is safe.

The product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the...

The chip does not implement or does not correctly perform access control to check whether users are authorized to access internal registers and test modes through the ...

The product receives data from an upstream component, but only filters a single instance of a special element before sending it to a downstream component.

The product receives data from an upstream component, but only accounts for special elements at a specified location, thereby missing remaining special elements that m...

The product receives data from an upstream component, but only accounts for special elements at an absolute position (e.g. "byte number 10"), thereby missing remaining...

The product receives data from an upstream component, but only accounts for special elements positioned relative to a marker (e.g. "at the beginning/end of a string; t...

The product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.

The product performs an operation on a resource at the wrong phase of the resource's lifecycle, which can lead to unexpected behaviors.

The product uses an expression in which operator precedence causes incorrect logic to be used.

The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

The product contains an account lockout protection mechanism, but the mechanism is too restrictive and can be triggered too easily, which allows attackers to deny serv...

A regular expression is overly restrictive, which prevents dangerous values from being detected.

A parent class has a virtual destructor method, but the parent has a child class that does not have a virtual destructor.

The code has a parent class that contains references to a child class, its methods, or its members.

A parent class contains one or more child classes, but the parent class does not have a virtual destructor method.

The product performs a comparison that only examines a portion of a factor before determining whether there is a match, such as a substring, leading to resultant weakn...

The product sends non-cloned mutable data as an argument to a method or function.

The product supports password aging, but the expiration period is too long.

The product stores a password in a configuration file that might be accessible to actors who do not know the password.

The product accepts path input in the form of leading space (' filedir') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attac...

The product accepts path input in the form of single dot directory exploit ('/./') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allo...

The product accepts path input in the form of multiple leading slash ('//multiple/leading/slash') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path reso...

The product accepts path input in the form of multiple internal slash ('/multiple//internal/slash/') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path r...

The product accepts path input in the form of multiple trailing slash ('/multiple/trailing/slash//') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path r...

The product accepts path input in the form of multiple internal backslash ('\multiple\trailing\\slash') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous pat...

The product contains protection mechanisms to restrict access to 'realdir/filename', but it constructs pathnames using external input in the form of 'fakedir/../realdi...

The product accepts path input in the form of internal space ('file(SPACE)name') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow ...

The product accepts path input in the form of multiple internal dot ('file...dir') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allo...

The product accepts path input in the form of internal dot ('file.ordir') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an atta...

The product accepts path input in the form of asterisk wildcard ('filedir*') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an a...

The product accepts path input in the form of trailing backslash ('filedir\') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an ...

The product accepts path input in the form of trailing space ('filedir ') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an atta...

The product accepts path input in the form of trailing dot ('filedir.') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an attack...

The product accepts path input in the form of multiple trailing dot ('filedir....') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and all...

The product accepts path input in the form of trailing slash ('filedir/') without appropriate validation, which can lead to ambiguous path resolution and allow an atta...

The product contains a protection mechanism that restricts access to a long filename on a Windows operating system, but it does not properly restrict access to the equ...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '...' (triple dot) sequences ...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '....' (multiple dot) sequenc...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '....//' (doubled dot dot sla...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '.../...//' (doubled triple d...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "../" sequences that can reso...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "..\" sequences that can reso...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize "/../" sequences that can res...

The product accepts input in the form of a slash absolute path ('/absolute/pathname/here') without appropriate validation, which can allow an attacker to traverse the ...

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 ...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backs...

The product accepts input that identifies a Windows UNC share ('\\UNC\share\name') that potentially redirects access to an unintended location or arbitrary file.

The product accepts input in the form of a backslash absolute path ('\absolute\pathname\here') without appropriate validation, which can allow an attacker to traverse ...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\dir\..\filename' (leading b...

The product accepts input that contains a drive letter or Windows volume letter ('C:dirname') that potentially redirects access to an unintended location or arbitrary ...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize multiple internal "../" seque...

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize 'dir\..\..\filename' (multipl...

The product, while copying or cloning a resource, does not set the resource's permissions or access control until the copy is complete, leaving the resource exposed to...

The product uses a cross-domain policy file that includes domains that should not be trusted.

The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are explicitly allowed by policy because the inputs are as...

The product uses a regular expression that does not sufficiently restrict the set of allowed values.

The product uses a storable data element that does not have all of the associated functions or methods that are necessary to support comparison.

A PHP application does not properly protect against the modification of variables from external sources, such as query parameters or cookies. This can expose the appli...

The product or the administrator places a user into an incorrect group.

Storing a password in plaintext may result in a system compromise.

The product's hardware-enforced access control for a particular resource improperly accounts for privilege discrepancies between control and write policies.

The product uses an obsolete encoding mechanism to implement access controls.

The product enables components that contain untrusted firmware before memory and fabric access controls have been enabled.

An exact value or random number can be precisely predicted by observing previous values.

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.

A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) is initialized from a predictable seed, such as the process ID or system time.

The product's random number generator produces a series of values which, when observed, can be used to infer a relatively small range of possibilities for the next val...

The product releases a resource that is still intended to be used by itself or another actor.

The product has a method that is declared public, but returns a reference to a private data structure, which could then be modified in unexpected ways.

Two distinct privileges, roles, capabilities, or rights can be combined in a way that allows an entity to perform unsafe actions that would not be allowed without that...

The product does not properly manage privileges while it is switching between different contexts that have different privileges or spheres of control.

A particular privilege, role, capability, or right can be used to perform unsafe actions that were not intended, even when it is assigned to the correct entity.

The product does not drop privileges before passing control of a resource to an actor that does not have those privileges.

Executing commands or loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands (and payloads) o...

The developer builds a security-critical protection mechanism into the software, but the processor optimizes the execution of the program such that the mechanism is re...

The product released to market is released in pre-production or manufacturing configuration.

The product's user interface does not warn the user before undertaking an unsafe action on behalf of that user. This makes it easier for attackers to trick users into ...

The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.

A class has a cloneable() method that is not declared final, which allows an object to be created without calling the constructor. This can cause the object to be in a...

Assigning public data to a private array is equivalent to giving public access to the array.

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

An object contains a public static field that is not marked final, which might allow it to be modified in unexpected ways.

A public or protected static final field references a mutable object, which allows the object to be changed by malicious code, or accidentally from another package.

The product opens an alternate channel to communicate with an authorized user, but the channel is accessible to other actors.

The product checks the status of a file or directory before accessing it, which produces a race condition in which the file can be replaced with a link before the acce...

A write-once register in hardware design is programmable by an untrusted software component earlier than the trusted software component, resulting in a race condition ...

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...

The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe th...

Simple authentication protocols are subject to reflection attacks if a malicious user can use the target machine to impersonate a trusted user.

The product uses a regular expression to perform neutralization, but the regular expression is not anchored and may allow malicious or malformed data to slip through.

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that c...

The product attempts to return a memory resource to the system, but it calls the wrong release function or calls the appropriate release function incorrectly.

A protection mechanism relies exclusively, or to a large extent, on the evaluation of a single condition or the integrity of a single object or entity in order to make...

The product contains a component that cannot be updated or patched in order to remove vulnerabilities or significant bugs.

The product relies on the existence or values of cookies when performing security-critical operations, but it does not properly ensure that the setting is valid for th...

The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of a cookie, but it does not properly ensure that the cookie is valid for the associated...

The product makes invalid assumptions about how protocol data or memory is organized at a lower level, resulting in unintended program behavior.

The product allows a file to be uploaded, but it relies on the file name or extension of the file to determine the appropriate behaviors. This could be used by attacke...

The product is built from multiple separate components, but it uses a component that is not sufficiently trusted to meet expectations for security, reliability, update...

The product uses an IP address for authentication.

The code uses a data representation that relies on low-level data representation or constructs that may vary across different processors, physical machines, ...

The product uses obfuscation or encryption of inputs that should not be mutable by an external actor, but the product does not use integrity checks to detect if those ...

Java packages are not inherently closed; therefore, relying on them for code security is not a good practice.

The product performs reverse DNS resolution on an IP address to obtain the hostname and make a security decision, but it does not properly ensure that the IP address i...

The product uses automatically-generated code that cannot be executed without a specific runtime support component.

The product uses a protection mechanism whose strength depends heavily on its obscurity, such that knowledge of its algorithms or key data is sufficient to defeat the ...

The product uses an API function, data structure, or other entity in a way that relies on properties that are not always guaranteed to hold for that entity.

The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses ...

Confidential information stored in memory circuits is readable or recoverable after being cleared or erased.

Replicating malicious code, including viruses and worms, will attempt to attack other systems once it has successfully compromised the target system or the product.

The code has a return statement inside a finally block, which will cause any thrown exception in the try block to be discarded.

A function can return a pointer to memory that is outside of the buffer that the pointer is expected to reference.

A function returns the address of a stack variable, which will cause unintended program behavior, typically in the form of a crash.

A function or operation returns an incorrect return value or status code that does not indicate an error, but causes the product to modify its behavior based on the in...

Sending non-cloned mutable data as a return value may result in that data being altered or deleted by the calling function.

Nonces should be used for the present occasion and only once.

The product uses deployed components from application servers, but it also uses low-level functions/methods for management of resources, instead of the API provided by...

A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) uses the same seed each time the product is initialized.

Security-version number in hardware is mutable, resulting in the ability to downgrade (roll-back) the boot firmware to vulnerable code versions.

The product uses a register lock bit protection mechanism, but it does not ensure that the lock bit prevents modification of system registers or controls that perform ...

A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mecha...

The product identifies an error condition and creates its own diagnostic or error messages that contain sensitive information.

The security-sensitive hardware module contains semiconductor defects.

The Secure attribute for sensitive cookies in HTTPS sessions is not set, which could cause the user agent to send those cookies in plaintext over an HTTP session.

The SameSite attribute for sensitive cookies is not set, or an insecure value is used.

The product uses a cookie to store sensitive information, but the cookie is not marked with the HttpOnly flag.

The product stores sensitive data in memory that is not locked, or that has been incorrectly locked, which might cause the memory to be written to swap files on disk b...

The product releases a resource such as memory or a file so that it can be made available for reuse, but it does not clear or "zeroize" the information contained in th...

The product performs a power or debug state transition, but it does not clear sensitive information that should no longer be accessible due to changes to information a...

Access to security-sensitive information stored in fuses is not limited during debug.

Specific combinations of processor instructions lead to undesirable behavior such as locking the processor until a hard reset performed.

The code contains a class with sensitive data, but the class does not explicitly deny serialization. The data can be accessed by serializing the class through another ...

The product contains a serializable, storable data element such as a field or member, but the data element contains member elements that are not serializable.

Certain conditions, such as network failure, will cause a server error message to be displayed.

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the reques...

A servlet error message indicates that there exists an unhandled exception in your web application code and may provide useful information to an attacker.

Authenticating a user, or otherwise establishing a new user session, without invalidating any existing session identifier gives an attacker the opportunity to steal au...

The product defines a function that is used as a handler for more than one signal.

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

The product defines a signal handler that calls a non-reentrant function.

The product defines a signal handler that contains code sequences that are not asynchronous-safe, i.e., the functionality is not reentrant, or it can be interrupted.

The product uses a signed primitive and performs a cast to an unsigned primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the signed primitive can not be...

The product implements a Singleton design pattern but does not use appropriate locking or other synchronization mechanism to ensure that the singleton class is only in...

A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) uses a relatively small seed space, which makes it more susceptible to brute force attacks.

The number of possible random values is smaller than needed by the product, making it more susceptible to brute force attacks.

The source code contains elements such as source files that do not consistently provide a prologue or header that has been standardized for the project.

A source code file has too many lines of code.

The product collects personally identifiable information about a human user or the user's activities, but the product accesses this information using other resources b...

Using Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with user-controlled input can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL...

A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter ...

The code contains a member element that is declared as static (but not final), in which its parent class element is not a singleton class - that is, a class...

The product stores sensitive data under the FTP server root with insufficient access control, which might make it accessible to untrusted parties.

The product stores sensitive data under the web document root with insufficient access control, which might make it accessible to untrusted parties.

The product stores sensitive information in a file system or device that does not have built-in access control.

The storage of passwords in a recoverable format makes them subject to password reuse attacks by malicious users. In fact, it should be noted that recoverable encrypte...

The product uses multiple validation forms with the same name, which might cause the Struts Validator to validate a form that the programmer does not expect.

If a form bean does not extend an ActionForm subclass of the Validator framework, it can expose the application to other weaknesses related to insufficient input valid...

The product has a form field that is not validated by a corresponding validation form, which can introduce other weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.

The product has a validator form that either does not define a validate() method, or defines a validate() method but does not call super.validate().

An ActionForm class contains a field that has not been declared private, which can be accessed without using a setter or getter.

When an application does not use an input validation framework such as the Struts Validator, there is a greater risk of introducing weaknesses related to insufficient ...

An unused validation form indicates that validation logic is not up-to-date.

Every Action Form must have a corresponding validation form.

Automatic filtering via a Struts bean has been turned off, which disables the Struts Validator and custom validation logic. This exposes the application to other weakn...

Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.

The code contains comments that suggest the presence of bugs, incomplete functionality, or weaknesses.

A constant symbolic reference to an object is used, even though the reference can resolve to a different object over time.

The code has a synchronous call to a remote resource, but there is no timeout for the call, or the timeout is set to infinite.

The UI performs the wrong action with respect to the user's request.

The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the ...

The product makes resources available to untrusted parties when those resources are only intended to be accessed by the product.

A trapdoor is a hidden piece of code that responds to a special input, allowing its user access to resources without passing through the normal security enforcement me...

The product appears to contain benign or useful functionality, but it also contains code that is hidden from normal operation that violates the intended security polic...

The product truncates the display, recording, or processing of security-relevant information in a way that can obscure the source or nature of an attack.

The product mixes trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure or structured message.

Security based on event locations are insecure and can be spoofed.

The server contains a protection mechanism that assumes that any URI that is accessed using HTTP GET will not cause a state change to the associated resource. This mig...

The user interface does not correctly enable or configure a security feature, but the interface provides feedback that causes the user to believe that the feature is i...

An unauthorized agent can inject errors into a redundant block to deprive the system of redundancy or put the system in a degraded operating mode.

An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.

The Servlet does not catch all exceptions, which may reveal sensitive debugging information.

[PLANNED FOR DEPRECATION. SEE MAINTENANCE NOTES AND CONSIDER CWE-252, CWE-248, OR CWE-1069.] Ignoring exceptions and other error conditions may allow an attacker to in...

The product does not properly check inputs that are used for loop conditions, potentially leading to a denial of service or other consequences because of excessive loo...

The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.

The product does not check for an error after calling a function that can return with a NULL pointer if the function fails, which leads to a resultant NULL pointer der...

The product performs unconditional control transfer (such as a "goto") in code outside of a branching structure such as a switch block.

The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource, thereby enabling an actor to influence the amount of resources consumed, ev...

The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.

The behavior of this function is undefined unless its control parameter is set to a specific value.

The product performs an operation on a number that causes it to be sign extended when it is transformed into a larger data type. When the original number is negative, ...

The product does not properly check when a function or operation returns a value that is legitimate for the function, but is not expected by the product.

A UI function for a security feature appears to be supported and gives feedback to the user that suggests that it is supported, but the underlying functionality is not...

Security-critical logic is not set to a known value on reset.

The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request bef...

During execution of non-reentrant code, the product performs a call that unintentionally produces a nested invocation of the non-reentrant code.

The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently account for when the name is associated with a hard link to a target that is outside of the intend...

The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently account for when the file is a symbolic link that resolves to a target outside of the intended con...

The product attempts to unlock a resource that is not locked.

The product uses a more complex mechanism than necessary, which could lead to resultant weaknesses when the mechanism is not correctly understood, modeled, configured,...

The product stores raw content or supporting code under the web document root with an extension that is not specifically handled by the server.

The product protects a primary channel, but it does not use the same level of protection for an alternate channel.

The product does not adequately protect confidential information on the device from being accessed by Outsourced Semiconductor Assembly and Test (OSAT) vendors.

The product uses a primary channel for administration or restricted functionality, but it does not properly protect the channel.

Login pages do not use adequate measures to protect the user name and password while they are in transit from the client to the server.

The product does not properly verify the source of a message in the Windows Messaging System while running at elevated privileges, creating an alternate channel throug...

The product uses a search path that contains an unquoted element, in which the element contains whitespace or other separators. This can cause the product to access re...

The product properly checks for the existence of a lock, but the lock can be externally controlled or influenced by an actor that is outside of the intended sphere of ...

The product allows the attacker to upload or transfer files of dangerous types that can be automatically processed within the product's environment.

An ActiveX control is intended for restricted use, but it has been marked as safe-for-scripting.

The product uses an unsigned primitive and performs a cast to a signed primitive, which can produce an unexpected value if the value of the unsigned primitive can not ...

The product does not properly synchronize shared data, such as static variables across threads, which can lead to undefined behavior and unpredictable data changes.

The product obtains a value from an untrusted source, converts this value to a pointer, and dereferences the resulting pointer.

The product searches for critical resources using an externally-supplied search path that can point to resources that are not under the product's direct control.

The product does not properly verify that a critical resource is owned by the proper entity.

When setting a new password for a user, the product does not require knowledge of the original password, or using another form of authentication.

A web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a Redirect. This simplifies phishing attacks.

Referencing memory after it has been freed can cause a program to crash, use unexpected values, or execute code.

The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.

To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptog...

The product uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attac...

The product calls a non-reentrant function in a concurrent context in which a competing code sequence (e.g. thread or signal handler) may have an opportunity to call t...

The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product uses a predictable salt as part of th...

The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product does not also use a salt as part of t...

The product uses a non-blocking model that relies on a single threaded process for features such as scalability, but it contains code that can block when it is invo...

The code uses a cache that contains sensitive information, but the cache can be read by an actor outside of the intended control sphere.

A client/server product performs authentication within client code but not in server code, allowing server-side authentication to be bypassed via a modified client tha...

The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) in a security context, but the PRNG's algorithm is not cryptographically strong.

The product uses default credentials (such as passwords or cryptographic keys) for potentially critical functionality.

The product uses a default cryptographic key for potentially critical functionality.

The product uses default passwords for potentially critical functionality.

The product uses or accesses a file descriptor after it has been closed.

The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.

The product uses external input with reflection to select which classes or code to use, but it does not sufficiently prevent the input from selecting improper classes ...

The code uses a function that has inconsistent implementations across operating systems and versions.

The web application uses the HTTP GET method to process a request and includes sensitive information in the query string of that request.

The product uses the getlogin() function in a multithreaded context, potentially causing it to return incorrect values.

The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key, which it uses for its own inbound authentication, outbound communication to exter...

The use of a hard-coded cryptographic key significantly increases the possibility that encrypted data may be recovered.

The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.

The product uses hard-coded constants instead of symbolic names for security-critical values, which increases the likelihood of mistakes during code maintenance or sec...

The Android application uses an implicit intent for transmitting sensitive data to other applications.

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not account for byte ordering (e.g. big-endian and little-endian) when processing the input, causing...

The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.

The product uses a name or reference to access a resource, but the name/reference resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.

The product calls a function that can never be guaranteed to work safely.

Inner classes are translated into classes that are accessible at package scope and may expose code that the programmer intended to keep private to attackers.

The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.

The product uses a constant value, name, or reference, but this value can (or should) vary across different environments.

The product has two different sources of the same data or information, but it uses the source that has less support for verification, is less trusted, or is less resis...

The product uses low-level functionality that is explicitly prohibited by the framework or specification under which the product is supposed to operate.

The product uses multiple resources that can have the same identifier, in a context in which unique identifiers are required.

The product defines policy namespaces and makes authorization decisions based on the assumption that a URL is canonical. This can allow a non-canonical URL to bypass t...

Catching NullPointerException should not be used as an alternative to programmatic checks to prevent dereferencing a null pointer.

The product contains a method that accesses an object but does not later invoke the element's associated finalize/destructor method.

The code uses deprecated or obsolete functions, which suggests that the code has not been actively reviewed or maintained.

The product performs pointer arithmetic on a valid pointer, but it uses an offset that can point outside of the intended range of valid memory locations for the result...

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 generates a hash for a password, but it uses a scheme that does not provide a sufficient level of computational effort that would make password cracking at...

The use of password systems as the primary means of authentication may be subject to several flaws or shortcomings, each reducing the effectiveness of the mechanism.

The product invokes a function for normalizing paths or file names, but it provides an output buffer that is smaller than the maximum possible size, such as PATH_MAX.

The web application uses persistent cookies, but the cookies contain sensitive information.

The product relies on third-party components that do not provide equivalent functionality across all desirable platforms.

The product subtracts one pointer from another in order to determine size, but this calculation can be incorrect if the pointers do not exist in the same memory chunk.

The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.

The device uses an algorithm that is predictable and generates a pseudo-random number.

The product uses a function, library, or third party component that has been explicitly prohibited, whether by the developer or the customer.

The product has multiple functions, methods, procedures, macros, etc. that contain the same code.

The product uses the RSA algorithm but does not incorporate Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding (OAEP), which might weaken the encryption.

The product uses the same control element across multiple architectural layers.

The code contains a callable, block, or other code element in which the same variable is used to control more than one unique task or store more than one ins...

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 uses the singleton pattern when creating a resource within a multithreaded environment.

The code calls sizeof() on a malloced pointer type, which always returns the wordsize/8. This can produce an unexpected result if the programmer intended to determine ...

The product calls umask() with an incorrect argument that is specified as if it is an argument to chmod().

The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.

The code uses a variable that has not been initialized, leading to unpredictable or unintended results.

The product relies on third-party components that are not actively supported or maintained by the original developer or a trusted proxy for the original deve...

The product uses weak credentials (such as a default key or hard-coded password) that can be calculated, derived, reused, or guessed by an attacker.

The product uses an algorithm that produces a digest (output value) that does not meet security expectations for a hash function that allows an adversary to reasonably...

The web application does not use an appropriate caching policy that specifies the extent to which each web page and associated form fields should be cached.

The web application produces links to untrusted external sites outside of its sphere of control, but it does not properly prevent the external site from modifying sec...

The product uses the wrong operator when comparing a string, such as using "==" when the .equals() method should be used instead.

The user interface (UI) does not properly represent critical information to the user, allowing the information - or its source - to be obscured or spoofed. This is oft...

The referer field in HTTP requests can be easily modified and, as such, is not a valid means of message integrity checking.

The product uses external input to determine the names of variables into which information is extracted, without verifying that the names of the specified variables ar...

The product violates well-established principles for secure design.

The product uses an authentication mechanism to restrict access to specific users or identities, but the mechanism does not sufficiently prove that the claimed identit...

Obscuring a password with a trivial encoding does not protect the password.

The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.

The product does not require that users should have strong passwords, which makes it easier for attackers to compromise user accounts.

The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently handle when the name is associated with a hard link to a target that is outside of the intended co...

The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently handle when the file is a Windows shortcut (.LNK) whose target is outside of the intended control ...

Wrap around errors occur whenever a value is incremented past the maximum value for its type and therefore "wraps around" to a very small, negative, or undefined value.

Any condition where the attacker has the ability to write an arbitrary value to an arbitrary location, often as the result of a buffer overflow.

The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is p...

This entry has been deprecated as it represents a specific observed example of a UNIX Hard Link weakness type rather than its own individual weakness type. Please refe...

This weakness has been deprecated because it covered redundant concepts already described in CWE-287.

This entry has been deprecated, as it was not effective as a weakness and was structured more like a category. In addition, the name is inappropriate, since the "conta...

This weakness can be found at CWE-385.

This entry has been deprecated because it incorporated and confused multiple weaknesses. The issues formerly covered in this entry can be found at CWE-766 and CWE-767.

This weakness has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-493. All content has been transferred to CWE-493.

This weakness can be found at CWE-199.

This weakness can be found at CWE-113.

This entry has been deprecated. It originally came from PLOVER, which sometimes defined "other" and "miscellaneous" categories in order to satisfy exhaustiveness requi...

This weakness has been deprecated because its name and description did not match. The description duplicated CWE-454, while the name suggested a more abstract initiali...

This weakness has been deprecated. It was poorly described and difficult to distinguish from other entries. It was also inappropriate to assign a separate ID solely ...

This entry has been deprecated because its abstraction was too low-level. See CWE-532.

This entry has been deprecated because its abstraction was too low-level. See CWE-532.

This entry has been deprecated because its abstraction was too low-level. See CWE-532.

This entry has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-170. All content has been transferred to CWE-170.

This entry has been deprecated because of name confusion and an accidental combination of multiple weaknesses. Most of its content has been transferred to CWE-785.

This entry has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-441. All content has been transferred to CWE-441.

This entry has been deprecated. There are no documented cases in which a switch's control expression is evaluated more than once.

This entry has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-350. All content has been transferred to CWE-350.

This entry has been deprecated because it was at a lower level of abstraction than supported by CWE. All relevant content has been integrated into CWE-319.

This entry was deprecated because it overlapped the same concepts as race condition (CWE-362) and Improper Synchronization (CWE-662).

This entry has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-350. All content has been transferred to CWE-350.

This entry has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-774. All content has been transferred to CWE-774.

This weakness has been deprecated because it partially overlaps CWE-470, it describes legitimate programmer behavior, and other portions will need to be integrated int...

This entry has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-908. All content has been transferred to CWE-908.

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that involve the software using an API ...

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that do not directly introduce a weakne...

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that occur when the product does not su...

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that are typically introduced during un...

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that occur when an application does not...

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses that exist when an application does not...

Software security is not security software. Here we're concerned with topics like authentication, access control, confidentiality, cryptography, and privilege management.

This category represents one of the phyla in the Seven Pernicious Kingdoms vulnerability classification. It includes weaknesses related to the improper management of t...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the use of built-in functions or external APIs.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of audit-based components of the system. Frequently these deal with logging user activities in o...

Weaknesses in this category are related to audit-based components of a software system. Frequently these deal with logging user activities in order to identify undesir...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of authentication components of the system. Frequently these deal with verifying the entity is i...

Weaknesses in this category are related to authentication components of a system. Frequently these deal with the ability to verify that an entity is indeed who it clai...

Weaknesses in this category are related to authorization components of a system. Frequently these deal with the ability to enforce that agents have the required permis...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of a system's authorization components. Frequently these deal with enforcing that agents have th...

Weaknesses in this category are related to coding practices that are deemed unsafe and increase the chances that an exploitable vulnerability will be present in the ap...

Weaknesses in this category are related to unexpected behaviors from code that an application uses.

Weaknesses in this category identify some of the underlying problems that commonly allow attackers to manipulate the business logic of an application. Errors in busine...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Preprocessor (PRE) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weakness...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map t...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Expressions (EXP) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weaknesse...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Integers (INT) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weaknesses, ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Floating Point Arithmetic (FLP) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to spec...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Arrays and the STL (ARR) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific we...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Characters and Strings (STR) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specifi...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Memory Management (MEM) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific wea...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Input Output (FIO) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weakness...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Environment (ENV) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weaknesse...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Signals (SIG) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weaknesses, t...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Exceptions and Error Handling (ERR) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Object Oriented Programming (OOP) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to sp...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Concurrency (CON) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weaknesse...

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Miscellaneous (MSC) section of the CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard. Since not all rules map to specific weaknes...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Maintainability, as documented in 2016 with the Automated Source Code Maintainability Measure ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Performance Efficiency, as documented in 2016 with the Automated Source Code Performance Effic...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Reliability, as documented in 2016 with the Automated Source Code CISQ Reliability Measure (AS...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Security, as documented in 2016 with the Automated Source Code Security Measure (ASCSM) Specif...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Efficiency. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the efficiency of the software.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Maintainability. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the maintainability of the software.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Reliability. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the reliability of the software.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the CISQ Quality Measures for Security. Presence of these weaknesses could reduce the security of the software.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of communication channels and access paths. These weaknesses include problems in creating, managing, or re...

Weaknesses in this category are associated with things being overly complex.

Weaknesses in this category are related to access control.

Weaknesses in this category are related to comparison.

Weaknesses in this category are related to component interaction.

Weaknesses in this category are related to concurrency.

Weaknesses in this category are related to encryption.

Weaknesses in this category are related to exposed resource.

Weaknesses in this category are related to file handling.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper check or handling of exceptional conditions.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper input validation.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper neutralization.

Weaknesses in this category are related to incorrect calculation.

Weaknesses in this category are related to injection.

Weaknesses in this category are related to insufficient control flow management.

Weaknesses in this category are related to insufficient verification of data authenticity.

Weaknesses in this category are related to memory safety.

Weaknesses in this category are related to poor coding practices.

Weaknesses in this category are related to protection mechanism failure.

Weaknesses in this category are related to randomness.

Weaknesses in this category are related to resource control.

Weaknesses in this category are related to resource lifecycle management.

Weaknesses in this category are related to sensitive information exposure.

Weaknesses in this category are related to violation of secure design principles.

Weaknesses in this category are related to concurrent use of shared resources.

Weaknesses in this category are typically associated with CPUs, Graphics, Vision, AI, FPGA, and microcontrollers.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the management of credentials.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of multiple security tactics and how they affect a system. For example, information exposure can...

Weaknesses in this category can arise in multiple areas of hardware design or can apply to a wide cross-section of components.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and implementation of data confidentiality and integrity. Frequently these deal with the use of encoding techniqu...

Weaknesses in this category are related to a software system's data integrity components. Frequently these deal with the ability to ensure the integrity of data, such ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the creation or neutralization of data using an incorrect format.

Weaknesses in this category are typically found in functionality that processes data. Data processing is the manipulation of input to retrieve or save information.

Weaknesses in this category are related to a software system's components for input validation, output validation, or other kinds of validation. Validation is a freque...

Weaknesses in this category are related to hardware debug and test interfaces such as JTAG and scan chain.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the documentation provided to support, create, or analyze a product.

Weaknesses in this category are related to issues surrounding the bundling of data with the methods intended to operate on that data.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of data confidentiality in a system. Frequently these deal with the use of encryption libraries....

This category includes weaknesses that occur if a function does not generate the correct return/status code, or if the application does not handle all possible return/...

Weaknesses in this category are related to incorrectly written expressions within code.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the handling of files within a software system. Files, directories, and folders are so central to information technology tha...

Weaknesses in this category are related to hardware-circuit design and logic (e.g., CMOS transistors, finite state machines, and registers) as well as issues related t...

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper management of handlers.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "ICS Communications" super category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in Mar...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Frail Security in Protocols" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Unreliability" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March 2022: "V...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Zone Boundary Failures" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "ICS Dependencies (& Architecture)" super category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as p...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "External Digital Systems" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in Mar...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "External Physical Systems" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in Ma...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Gaps in Details/Data" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March 2...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Inherent Predictability in Design" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as publish...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Maker Breaker Blindness" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in Marc...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Security Gaps in Commissioning" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Trust Model Problems" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March 2...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "ICS Engineering (Constructions/Deployment)" super category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "ICS Operations (& Maintenance)" super category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as publ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Compliance/Conformance with Regulatory Requirements" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Emerging Energy Technologies" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Exploitable Standard Operational Procedures" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Gaps in obligations and training" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as publishe...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Human factors in ICS environments" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as publish...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Post-analysis changes" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "ICS Supply Chain" super category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Common Mode Frailties" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in March ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "IT/OT Convergence/Expansion" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as published in ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "OT Counterfeit and Malicious Corruption" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" as p...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the "Poorly Documented or Undocumented Features" category from the SEI ETF "Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS" a...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of a system's identification management components. Frequently these deal with verifying that ex...

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of sensitive information.

Weaknesses in this category occur in behaviors that are used for initialization and breakdown.

Weaknesses in this category are those that arise due to integration of multiple hardware Intellectual Property (IP) cores, from System-on-a-Chip (SoC) subsystem intera...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of system resources. Frequently these deal with restricting the amount of resources that are acc...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of the entry points to a system. Frequently these deal with minimizing the attack surface throug...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of a system's lockout mechanism. Frequently these deal with scenarios that take effect in case o...

Weaknesses in this category are related to a software system's lockout mechanism. Frequently these deal with scenarios that take effect in case of multiple failed atte...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of session management. Frequently these deal with the information or status about each user and ...

Weaknesses in this category are root-caused to defects that arise in the semiconductor-manufacturing process or during the life cycle and supply chain.

Weaknesses in this category are typically associated with memory (e.g., DRAM, SRAM) and storage technologies (e.g., NAND Flash, OTP, EEPROM, and eMMC).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the handling of memory buffers within a software system.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper calculation or conversion of numbers.

Functions that manipulate strings encourage buffer overflows.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A1 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A2 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A3 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A4 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A5 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A6 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A7 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A8 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A9 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A01 category "Broken Access Control" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A02 category "Cryptographic Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A03 category "Injection" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A04 "Insecure Design" category in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A05 category "Security Misconfiguration" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A06 category "Vulnerable and Outdated Components" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A07 category "Identification and Authentication Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A08 category "Software and Data Integrity Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A09 category "Security Logging and Monitoring Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category "Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)" in the OWASP Top Ten 2021.

Weaknesses in this category are related to hardware security problems that apply to peripheral devices, IO interfaces, on-chip interconnects, network-o...

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper assignment or handling of permissions.

Weaknesses in this category are related to concerns of physical access.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of pointers.

Weaknesses in this category are related to system power, voltage, current, temperature, clocks, system state saving/restoring, and resets at the platform and SoC level.

Weaknesses in this category occur with improper handling, assignment, or management of privileges. A privilege is a property of an agent, such as a user. It lets the a...

Weaknesses in this category are related to features and mechanisms providing hardware-based isolation and access control (e.g., identity, policy, locking control) of s...

Weaknesses in this category are related to a software system's random number generation.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of locks that are used to control access to resources.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper management of system resources.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper design of full-system security flows, including but not limited to secure boot, secure update, and hardware-device ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to hardware implementations of cryptographic protocols and other hardware-security primitives such as physical unclonable funct...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Preprocessor (PRE) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Expressions (EXP) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Integers (INT) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Floating Point (FLP) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Arrays (ARR) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Characters and Strings (STR) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Memory Management (MEM) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Input Output (FIO) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Environment (ENV) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Signals (SIG) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Error Handling (ERR) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Application Programming Interfaces (API) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Concurrency (CON) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Miscellaneous (MSC) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the POSIX (POS) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Microsoft Windows (WIN) section of the SEI CERT C Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Input Validation and Data Sanitization (IDS) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Codi...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Stan...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Expressions (EXP) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Numeric Types and Operations (NUM) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standar...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Characters and Strings (STR) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for ...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Object Orientation (OBJ) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Methods (MET) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Exceptional Behavior (ERR) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Visibility and Atomicity (VNA) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard fo...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Locking (LCK) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Thread APIs (THI) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Thread Pools (TPS) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Thread-Safety Miscellaneous (TSM) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Input Output (FIO) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Serialization (SER) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Platform Security (SEC) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Runtime Environment (ENV) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Java Native Interface (JNI) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for J...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Concurrency (CON) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Miscellaneous (MSC) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Android (DRD) section of the SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Input Validation and Data Sanitization (IDS) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Expressions (EXP) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Integers (INT) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Strings (STR) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the File Input and Output (FIO) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Miscellaneous (MSC) section of the SEI CERT Perl Coding Standard.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Access Control cluster (SFP35).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the API cluster (SFP3).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Authentication cluster (SFP29, SFP30, SFP31, SFP32, SFP33, SFP34).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Channel cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Cryptography cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Entry Points cluster (SFP28).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Exception Management cluster (SFP4, SFP5, SFP6).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Failure to Release Memory cluster (SFP38).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Resource Release cluster (SFP37).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Information Leak cluster (SFP23).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Malware cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Memory Access cluster (SFP7, SFP8).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Memory Management cluster (SFP38).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Other cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Path Resolution cluster (SFP16, SFP17, SFP18).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Predictability cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Privilege cluster (SFP36).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Resource Management cluster (SFP37).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Risky Values cluster (SFP1).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Synchronization cluster (SFP19, SFP20, SFP21, SFP22).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input cluster (SFP24, SFP25, SFP26, SFP27).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the UI cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unused entities cluster (SFP2).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Access Management cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Ambiguous Exception Type cluster (SFP5).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Architecture cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Authentication Bypass cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Broken Cryptography cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Channel Attack cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Compiler cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Covert Channel cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Design cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Digital Certificate cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Exposed Data cluster (SFP23).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Exposure Temporary File cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Failed Chroot Jail cluster (SFP17).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Failure to Release Resource cluster (SFP14).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Buffer Access cluster (SFP8).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Endpoint Authentication cluster (SFP29).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Input Transformation cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Memory Release cluster (SFP12).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Pointer Use cluster (SFP7).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty Resource Use cluster (SFP15).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Faulty String Expansion cluster (SFP9).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Feature cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Glitch in Computation cluster (SFP1).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Hardcoded Sensitive Data cluster (SFP33).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Implementation cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Improper NULL Termination cluster (SFP11).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Incorrect Buffer Length Computation cluster (SFP10).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Incorrect Exception Behavior cluster (SFP6).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Incorrect Input Handling cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Information Loss cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Authentication Policy cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Resource Access cluster (SFP35).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Resource Permissions cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Insecure Session Management cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Life Cycle cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Link in Resource Name Resolution cluster (SFP18).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Missing Authentication cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Missing Endpoint Authentication cluster (SFP30).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Missing Lock cluster (SFP19).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Multiple Binds to the Same Port cluster (SFP32).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Multiple Locks/Unlocks cluster (SFP21).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Other Exposures cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Path Traversal cluster (SFP16).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Protocol Error cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Race Condition Window cluster (SFP20).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Security cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the State Disclosure cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input to Command cluster (SFP24).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input to Environment cluster (SFP27).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Tainted Input to Variable cluster (SFP25).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unchecked Status Condition cluster (SFP4).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unexpected Entry Points cluster.

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unrestricted Authentication cluster (SFP34).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unrestricted Consumption cluster (SFP13).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Unrestricted Lock cluster (SFP22).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Use of an Improper API cluster (SFP3).

This category identifies Software Fault Patterns (SFPs) within the Weak Cryptography cluster.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the improper handling of signals.

Weaknesses in this category are related to improper management of system state.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the creation and modification of strings.

Weaknesses in this category are caused by improper data type transformation or improper handling of multiple data types.

Weaknesses in this category are related to or introduced in the User Interface (UI).

Weaknesses in this category are related to session management. Frequently these deal with the information or status about each user and their access rights for the dur...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of a system's input validation components. Frequently these deal with sanitizing, neutralizing a...

Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and architecture of a system's data integrity components. Frequently these deal with ensuring integrity of data, ...

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Insecure Interaction Between Components" section of the 2009 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Porous Defenses" section of the 2009 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Risky Resource Management" section of the 2009 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Insecure Interaction Between Components" section of the 2010 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Porous Defenses" section of the 2010 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Risky Resource Management" section of the 2010 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are not part of the general Top 25, but they were part of the original nominee list from which the Top 25 was drawn.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Insecure Interaction Between Components" section of the 2011 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Porous Defenses" section of the 2011 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are listed in the "Risky Resource Management" section of the 2011 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors.

Weaknesses in this category are not part of the general Top 25, but they were part of the original nominee list from which the Top 25 was drawn.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the POSIX (POS) appendix of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Preprocessor (PRE) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Expressions (EXP) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Integers (INT) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Floating Point (FLP) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Arrays (ARR) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Characters and Strings (STR) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Memory Management (MEM) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Input Output (FIO) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Environment (ENV) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Signals (SIG) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Error Handling (ERR) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are related to the rules and recommendations in the Miscellaneous (MSC) chapter of the CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008).

Weaknesses in this category are typically introduced during the configuration of the software.

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This category has been deprecated. It added unnecessary depth and complexity to its associated views.

This category has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the resu...

This category has been deprecated because it redundant with the grouping provided by CWE-417.

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity and...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This entry has been deprecated. It is a leftover from PLOVER, but CWE-138 is a more appropriate mapping.

This category has been deprecated as it was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the re...

This category has been deprecated as it was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the re...

This category has been deprecated as it was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the re...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity and...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the resu...

This category has been deprecated as it was found to be an unnecessary abstraction of platform specific details. Please refer to the category CWE-632 and weakness CWE-...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity and...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the resu...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This category has been deprecated as it was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the re...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing weaknesses involving file names, which enabled access to files outside of a restricted directo...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the resu...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally intended as a "catch-all" for environment issues for technologies that did not have their own CWE, but it introduc...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally intended as a "catch-all" for input validation problems in technologies that did not have their own CWE, but intro...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally intended as a "catch-all" for input validation problems in technologies that did not have their own CWE, but intro...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity and...

This category has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699), but it introduced unnecessary complexity and depth to the resu...

This category has been deprecated. It covered a very low level of abstraction based on operating system, which was not useful for any existing view.

This weakness has been deprecated because it was a duplicate of CWE-355. All content has been transferred to CWE-355.

This category has been deprecated. It was not actively maintained, and it was not useful to stakeholders. It was originally created before CWE 1.0 as part of view CWE-...

This category has been deprecated. It was not actively maintained, and it was not useful to stakeholders. It was originally created before CWE 1.0 as part of view CWE-...

This category has been deprecated. It was not actively maintained, and it was not useful to stakeholders. It was originally created before CWE 1.0 as part of view CWE-...

This entry has been deprecated. It was originally used for organizing the Development View (CWE-699) and some other views, but it introduced unnecessary complexity an...

This category has been deprecated. It covered a very low level of abstraction based on operating system, which was not useful for any existing view.

This category has been deprecated as it was found to be an unnecessary abstraction of platform specific details. Please refer to the category CWE-632 and weakness CWE-...

Weaknesses in this category are related to errors in the management of cryptographic keys.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A1 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A2 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A3 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A4 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A5 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A6 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A7 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A8 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A9 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2004.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A1 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A2 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A3 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A4 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A5 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A6 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A7 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A8 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A9 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2007.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A1 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A2 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A3 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A4 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A5 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A6 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A7 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A8 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A9 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2010.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A1 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A2 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A3 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A4 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A5 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A6 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A7 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A8 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A9 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2013.

Weaknesses in this category are related to the management of permissions, privileges, and other security features that are used to perform access control.

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Input Validation and Data Sanitization (IDS) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Declarations and Initialization (DCL) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Expressions (EXP) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Numeric Types and Operations (NUM) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Object Orientation (OBJ) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Methods (MET) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Exceptional Behavior (ERR) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Visibility and Atomicity (VNA) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Locking (LCK) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Thread APIs (THI) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Thread Pools (TPS) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Thread-Safety Miscellaneous (TSM) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Input Output (FIO) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Serialization (SER) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Platform Security (SEC) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Runtime Environment (ENV) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

Weaknesses in this category are related to rules in the Miscellaneous (MSC) chapter of The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011).

This view organizes weaknesses according to common architectural security tactics. It is intended to assist architects in identifying potential mistakes that can be ma...

This view outlines the SMM representation of the Automated Source Code Data Protection Measurement specifications, as identified by the Consortium for Information & So...

This view outlines the most important software quality issues as identified by the Consortium for Information & Software Quality (CISQ) Automated Quality Characteristi...

This view outlines the most important software quality issues as identified by the Consortium for Information & Software Quality (CISQ) Automated Quality Characteristi...

This view displays only composite weaknesses.

This view organizes weaknesses around categories that are of interest to large-scale software assurance research to support the elimination of weaknesses using ta...

This view contains a selection of weaknesses that represent the variety of weaknesses that are captured in CWE, at a level of abstraction that is likely to be useful t...

CWE nodes in this view (slice) have been deprecated. There should be a reference pointing to the replacement in each deprecated weakness.

CWE entries in this view have maintenance notes. Maintenance notes are an indicator that an entry might change significantly in future versions. This view was created...

This view organizes weaknesses around concepts that are frequently used or encountered in hardware design. Accordingly, this view can align closely with the perspectiv...

This view displays Named Chains and their components.

CWE identifiers in this view (slice) are quality issues that only indirectly make it easier to introduce a vulnerability and/or make the vulnerability more difficult t...

This view is intended to facilitate research into weaknesses, including their inter-dependencies, and can be leveraged to systematically identify theoretical gaps with...

This view (graph) organizes weaknesses using a hierarchical structure that is similar to that used by Seven Pernicious Kingdoms.

This view organizes weaknesses around concepts that are frequently used or encountered in software development. This includes all aspects of the software development l...

CWE identifiers in this view are associated with clusters of Software Fault Patterns (SFPs).

This view (slice) displays only weakness base elements.

This view (slice) covers weaknesses that are addressed by following requirements in the ISA/IEC 62443 series of standards for industrial automation and control systems...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the guidance presented in the online wiki that reflects that current rules and recommen...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the guidance presented in the online wiki that reflects that current rules and recommen...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the guidance presented in the online wiki that reflects that current rules and recommen...

CWE entries in this view (graph) may be used to categorize potential weaknesses within sources that handle public, third-party vulnerability information, such as the N...

CWE entries in this view (slice) are often seen in mobile applications.

CWE nodes in this view (graph) are associated with the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2017.

CWE entries in this view (graph) are associated with the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2021.

CWE entries in this view (graph) are associated with the Categories of Security Vulnerabilities in ICS, as published by the Securing Energy Infrastructure Executive Ta...

This view (slice) covers issues that are found in C programs that are not common to all languages.

This view (slice) covers issues that are found in C++ programs that are not common to all languages.

This view (slice) covers issues that are found in Java programs that are not common to all languages.

This view (slice) covers issues that are found in PHP programs that are not common to all languages.

CWE entries in this view are listed in the 2019 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors.

CWE entries in this view are listed in the 2020 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses.

CWE entries in this view are listed in the 2021 CWE Most Important Hardware Weaknesses List, as determined by the Hardware CWE Special Interest Group (HW CWE SIG).

CWE entries in this view are listed in the 2021 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses.

CWE entries in this view are listed in the 2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses.

CWE entries in this view are listed in the 2023 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses.

This view (slice) lists weaknesses that can be introduced during design.

This view (slice) lists weaknesses that can be introduced during implementation.

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the guidance presented in the book "The CERT C Secure Coding Standard" published in 200...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the guidance presented in the book "The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java" pu...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are fully or partially eliminated by following the SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard, as published in 2016. This view is no longer being ac...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are associated with the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2004, and as required for compliance with PCI DSS version 1.1. This view is cons...

CWE nodes in this view (graph) are associated with the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2007. This view is considered obsolete as a newer version of the OWASP Top Ten is ...

CWE nodes in this view (graph) are associated with the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2010. This view is considered obsolete as a newer version of the OWASP Top Ten is ...

CWE nodes in this view (graph) are associated with the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2013. This view is considered obsolete as a newer version of the OWASP Top Ten is ...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are listed in the 2009 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors. This view is considered obsolete as a newer version of the Top 25 is availa...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are listed in the 2010 CWE/SANS Top 25 Programming Errors. This view is considered obsolete as a newer version of the Top 25 is availa...

CWE entries in this view (graph) are listed in the 2011 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors.

CWE nodes in this view (slice) were used by NIST to categorize vulnerabilities within NVD, from 2008 to 2016. This original version has been used by many other projects.