Weaknesses in this category are related to the use of built-in functions or external APIs.
The product calls a function that can never be guaranteed to work safely.
The code uses a function that has inconsistent implementations across operating systems and versions.
The behavior of this function is undefined unless its control parameter is set to a specific value.
The code uses deprecated or obsolete functions, which suggests that the code has not been actively reviewed or maintained.
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 product uses low-level functionality that is explicitly prohibited by the framework or specification under which the product is supposed to operate.
The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous method or function that is not properly restricted.
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 undesired access and modifications to the system. The weaknesses in this category could lead to a degradation of the quality of the audit capability if they are not addressed.
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
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 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.
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 records security-relevant information according to an alternate name of the affected entity, instead of the canonical name.
The product logs too much information, making log files hard to process and possibly hindering recovery efforts or forensic analysis after an attack.
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 claims to be. If not addressed when designing or implementing a software system, these weaknesses could lead to a degradation of the quality of the authentication capability.
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 possible names for that resource or actor.
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
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 to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Simple authentication protocols are subject to reflection attacks if a malicious user can use the target machine to impersonate a trusted user.
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
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.
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
The product uses an authentication algorithm that uses a single factor (e.g., a password) in a security context that should require more than one factor.
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.
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 that omits the authentication check.
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 service to legitimate users by causing their accounts to be locked out.
The product uses a CAPTCHA challenge, but the challenge can be guessed or automatically recognized by a non-human actor.
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.
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 permissions before performing certain operations, such as modifying data. If not addressed when designing or implementing a software system, these weaknesses could lead to a degradation of the quality of the authorization capability.
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
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 makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.
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 does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions.
The product or the administrator places a user into an incorrect group.
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 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 from untrusted agents. However, implemented access controls lack required granularity, which renders the control policy too broad because it allows accesses from unauthorized agents to the security-sensitive assets.
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 original, sensitive information.
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 application. These weaknesses do not directly introduce a vulnerability, but indicate that the product has not been carefully developed or maintained. If a program is complex, difficult to maintain, not portable, or shows evidence of neglect, then there is a higher likelihood that weaknesses are buried in the code.
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 technique.
Security based on event locations are insecure and can be spoofed.
The code does not have a default case in an expression with multiple conditions, such as a switch statement.
Java packages are not inherently closed; therefore, relying on them for code security is not a good practice.
The product is released with debugging code still enabled or active.
The product uses hard-coded constants instead of symbolic names for security-critical values, which increases the likelihood of mistakes during code maintenance or security policy change.
The product contains dead code, which can never be executed.
A function returns the address of a stack variable, which will cause unintended program behavior, typically in the form of a crash.
The variable's value is assigned but never used, making it a dead store.
The product does not maintain equal hashcodes for equal objects.
The product makes an explicit call to the finalize() method from outside the finalizer.
When multiple sockets are allowed to bind to the same port, other services on that port may be stolen or spoofed.
The product calls a function, procedure, or routine with arguments that are not correctly specified, leading to always-incorrect behavior and resultant weaknesses.
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 a decision about granting access to restricted resources or functionality.
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 mechanism.
The product uses multiple resources that can have the same identifier, in a context in which unique identifiers are required.
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 the protection mechanism.
The product has multiple functions, methods, procedures, macros, etc. that contain the same code.
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 product's architecture contains too many - or too few - horizontal layers.
A parent class has a virtual destructor method, but the parent has a child class that does not have a virtual destructor.
The product creates an immutable text string using string concatenation operations.
The code contains callable control elements that contain an excessively large number of references to other application objects external to the context of the callable, i.e. a Fan-Out value that is excessively large.
The product performs a data query with a large number of joins and sub-queries on a large data table.
The product has a loop body or loop condition that contains a control element that directly or indirectly consumes platform resources, e.g. messaging, sessions, locks, or file descriptors.
A static code block creates an instance of a class.
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 the application server.
The product contains a serializable data element that does not have an associated serialization method.
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 to be performed.
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.
The source code contains a block that does not contain any code, i.e., the block is empty.
The product accesses a data resource through a database without using a connection pooling capability.
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 efficient database capabilities.
A parent class contains one or more child classes, but the parent class does not have a virtual destructor method.
The code contains a class instance that calls the method or function to delete or destroy itself.
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.
A class contains a virtual method, but the method does not have an associated virtual destructor.
The product uses a large data table that contains an excessively large number of indices.
The product uses the same control element across multiple architectural layers.
The product contains an index range scan for a large data table, but the scan can cover a large number of rows.
The product uses a storable data element that does not have all of the associated functions or methods that are necessary to support comparison.
The code contains a data element with a pointer that does not have an associated copy or constructor method.
The product's code, documentation, or other artifacts do not consistently use the same naming conventions for variables, callables, groups of related callables, I/O capabilities, data types, file names, or similar types of elements.
The product uses automatically-generated code that cannot be executed without a specific runtime support component.
The code uses a data representation that relies on low-level data representation or constructs that may vary across different processors, physical machines, OSes, or other physical components.
The product relies on third-party components that do not provide equivalent functionality across all desirable platforms.
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 developer.
The source code uses literal constants that may need to change or evolve over time, instead of using symbolic constants.
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 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 associated information in a narrower, more local context.
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 instance of data.
The source code uses comment styles or formats that are inconsistent or do not follow expected standards for the product.
The source code contains whitespace that is inconsistent across the code or does not follow expected standards for the product.
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.
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 code contains a function or method whose signature and/or associated inline documentation does not sufficiently describe the callable's inputs, outputs, side effects, assumptions, or return codes.
The source code declares a variable in one scope, but the variable is only used within a narrower scope.
The code is compiled without sufficient warnings enabled, which may prevent the detection of subtle bugs or quality issues.
The code uses boxed primitives, which may introduce inefficiencies into performance-critical operations.
Weaknesses in this category are related to unexpected behaviors from code that an application uses.
The product misinterprets an input, whether from an attacker or another product, in a security-relevant fashion.
The product validates input before applying protection mechanisms that modify the input, which could allow an attacker to bypass the validation via dangerous inputs that only arise after the modification.
The product allows an entity to perform a legitimate but expensive operation before authentication or authorization has taken place.
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, potentially causing the product to perform incorrect actions based on this incomplete model.
A's behavior or functionality changes with a new version of A, or a new environment, which is not known (or manageable) by B.
A feature, API, or function does not perform according to its specification.
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 it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
The code does not explicitly delimit a block that is intended to contain 2 or more statements, creating a logic error.
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 programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.
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 web application sends a redirect to another location, but instead of exiting, it executes additional code.
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.
The product uses an expression in which operator precedence causes incorrect logic to be used.
The product contains an iteration or loop with an exit condition that cannot be reached, i.e., an infinite loop.
The product requires that an actor should only be able to perform an action once, or to have only one unique action, but the product does not enforce or improperly enforces this restriction.
The 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 required sequence.
The code performs a comparison between two entities, but the comparison examines the wrong factors or characteristics of the entities, which can lead to incorrect results and resultant weaknesses.
The developer builds a security-critical protection mechanism into the software, but the processor optimizes the execution of the program such that the mechanism is removed or modified.
Weaknesses in this category identify some of the underlying problems that commonly allow attackers to manipulate the business logic of an application. Errors in business logic can be devastating to an entire application. They can be difficult to find automatically, since they typically involve legitimate use of the application's functionality. However, many business logic errors can exhibit patterns that are similar to well-understood implementation and design weaknesses.
The product does not properly verify that a critical resource is owned by the proper entity.
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 contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
The product assigns an owner to a resource, but the owner is outside of the intended control sphere.
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
The product releases a resource that is still intended to be used by itself or another actor.
The product requires that an actor should only be able to perform an action once, or to have only one unique action, but the product does not enforce or improperly enforces this restriction.
The 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 required sequence.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of communication channels and access paths. These weaknesses include problems in creating, managing, or removing alternate channels and alternate paths. Some of these can overlap virtual file problems and are commonly used in "bypass" attacks, such as those that exploit authentication errors.
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
Covert timing channels convey information by modulating some aspect of system behavior over time, so that the program receiving the information can observe system behavior and infer protected information.
The product uses a primary channel for administration or restricted functionality, but it does not properly protect the channel.
The product protects a primary channel, but it does not use the same level of protection for an alternate channel.
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
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 that of ordinary operation is that the bits are used to convey encoded information.
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 request is being sent to the expected destination.
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 not modified during transmission.
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 coming from the expected origin.
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.
The product assigns the address 0.0.0.0 for a database server, a cloud service/instance, or any computing resource that communicates remotely.
Weaknesses in this category are associated with things being overly complex.
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 product contains modules in which one module has references that cycle back to itself, i.e., there are circular dependencies.
The product contains a class with inheritance from more than one concrete class.
A named-callable or method control element has a signature that supports a variable (variadic) number of parameters or arguments.
The product performs too many data queries without using efficient data processing functionality such as stored procedures.
The product contains a function, subroutine, or method whose signature has an unnecessarily large number of parameters/arguments.
A class has an inheritance level that is too high, i.e., it has a large number of parent classes.
The product performs unconditional control transfer (such as a "goto") in code outside of a branching structure such as a switch block.
A source code file has too many lines of code.
A class contains an unnecessarily large number of children.
The product uses a loop with a control flow condition based on a value that is updated within the body of the loop.
The code uses too many unconditional branches (such as "goto").
The code contains McCabe cyclomatic complexity that exceeds a desirable maximum.
The code is structured in a way that a Halstead complexity measure exceeds a desirable maximum.
The product uses too much self-modifying code.
The code contains a callable or other code grouping in which the nesting / branching is too deep.
The product has an attack surface whose quantitative measurement exceeds a desirable maximum.
The product uses a regular expression with an inefficient, possibly exponential worst-case computational complexity that consumes excessive CPU cycles.
Weaknesses in this category are related to concurrent use of shared resources.
The product uses a signal handler that introduces 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 undefined.
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 results of the check.
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 to modify or misrepresent the product's behavior during the switch.
A constant symbolic reference to an object is used, even though the reference can resolve to a different object over time.
The product opens an alternate channel to communicate with an authorized user, but the channel is accessible to other actors.
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 the same function or otherwise influence its state.
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner but does not attempt to synchronize access to the resource.
The product utilizes a shared resource in a concurrent manner, but it does not correctly synchronize access to the resource.
The code contains a function or method that operates in a multi-threaded environment but owns an unsafe non-final static storable or member data element.
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 invoked.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the management of credentials.
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
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 encrypted passwords provide no significant benefit over plaintext passwords since they are subject not only to reuse by malicious attackers but also by malicious insiders. If a system administrator can recover a password directly, or use a brute force search on the available information, the administrator can use the password on other accounts.
The product stores a password in a configuration file that might be accessible to actors who do not know the password.
Obscuring a password with a trivial encoding does not protect the password.
The product does not have a mechanism in place for managing password aging.
The product supports password aging, but the expiration period is too long.
The product uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.
The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.
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 mask passwords during entry, increasing the potential for attackers to observe and capture passwords.
When setting a new password for a user, the product does not require knowledge of the original password, or using another form of authentication.
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 contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
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 attacks infeasible or expensive.
The product uses default credentials (such as passwords or cryptographic keys) for potentially critical functionality.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the design and implementation of data confidentiality and integrity. Frequently these deal with the use of encoding techniques, encryption libraries, and hashing algorithms. The weaknesses in this category could lead to a degradation of the quality data if they are not addressed.
Obscuring a password with a trivial encoding does not protect the password.
The product uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.
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 determine the original input (preimage attack), find another input that can produce the same hash (2nd preimage attack), or find multiple inputs that evaluate to the same hash (birthday attack).
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 attacks infeasible or expensive.
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 number of possible random values is smaller than needed by the product, making it more susceptible to brute force attacks.
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) in a security context, but the PRNG's algorithm is not cryptographically strong.
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
The product uses a cryptographic primitive that uses an Initialization Vector (IV), but the product does not generate IVs that are sufficiently unpredictable or unique according to the expected cryptographic requirements for that primitive.
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.
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 as messages, resource files, deployment files, and configuration files. The weaknesses in this category could lead to a degradation of data integrity quality if they are not addressed.
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
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 resistant to attack.
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.
The product does not properly distinguish between different types of elements in a way that leads to insecure behavior.
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.
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 modified or corrupted in transmission.
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.
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 the associated user.
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 inputs have been modified.
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
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 not modified during transmission.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the creation or neutralization of data using an incorrect format.
The product correctly neutralizes certain special elements, but it improperly neutralizes equivalent special elements.
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 special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component.
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 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, options, or switches within that command string.
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 neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
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 special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
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 processed by an end system.
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 sequences from inputs.
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 neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file.
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes delimiters.
The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.
The accidental deletion of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.
The accidental addition of a data-structure sentinel can cause serious programming logic problems.
The product constructs the name of a file or other resource using input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the resulting name.
The product uses multiple resources that can have the same identifier, in a context in which unique identifiers are required.
The product receives data from an upstream component, but does not completely filter special elements before sending it to a downstream component.
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 by the downstream component.
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 upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended EL statement before it is executed.
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 be interpreted as a command when the file is opened by a spreadsheet product.
Weaknesses in this category are typically found in functionality that processes data. Data processing is the manipulation of input to retrieve or save information.
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 associated data.
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 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 input in which an inconsistency exists between two or more special characters or reserved words.
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 filters data in a way that causes it to be reduced or "collapsed" into an unsafe value that violates an expected security property.
A regular expression is overly restrictive, which prevents dangerous values from being detected.
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 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 handle or incorrectly handles inputs that are related to complex structures.
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 handle or incorrectly handles a compressed input with a very high compression ratio that produces a large output.
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 web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
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 to embed incorrect documents into its output.
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 inserting pattern modifiers.
The product uses a regular expression that does not sufficiently restrict the set of allowed values.
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 definitions of entities.
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 they are directly compared.
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 frequently-used technique for ensuring that data conforms to expectations before it is further processed as input or output. There are many varieties of validation (see CWE-20, which is just for input validation). Validation is distinct from other techniques that attempt to modify data before processing it, although developers may consider all attempts to product "safe" inputs or outputs as some kind of validation. Regardless, validation is a powerful tool that is often used to minimize malformed data from entering the system, or indirectly avoid code injection or other potentially-malicious patterns when generating output. The weaknesses in this category could lead to a degradation of the quality of data flow in a system if they are not addressed.
The product validates input before applying protection mechanisms that modify the input, which could allow an attacker to bypass the validation via dangerous inputs that only arise after the modification.
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 assumed to be safe, but the list is too permissive - that is, it allows an input that is unsafe, leading to resultant weaknesses.
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 action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.
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 does not use, or incorrectly uses, an input validation framework that is provided by the source language or an independent library.
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 required properties.
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 looping.
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
The product accepts XML from an untrusted source but does not validate the XML against the proper schema.
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 a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.
The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the documentation provided to support, create, or analyze a product.
The product does not have documentation that represents how it is designed.
The implementation of the product is not consistent with the design as described within the relevant documentation.
The product's design documentation does not adequately describe control flow, data flow, system initialization, relationships between tasks, components, rationales, or other important aspects of the design.
The product's documentation does not adequately define inputs, outputs, or system/software interfaces.
The document does not fully define all mechanisms that are used to control or influence how product-specific programs are executed.
The documentation does not sufficiently describe the techniques that are used for error handling, exception processing, or similar mechanisms.
Weaknesses in this category are related to issues surrounding the bundling of data with the methods intended to operate on that data.
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 the invoked code is not part of a vertical utility layer that can be referenced from any horizontal layer.
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 manager.
The code has a parent class that contains references to a child class, its methods, or its members.
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 data access operations without using that component.
A method for a class performs an operation that directly accesses a member element from another class.
The product or code does not isolate system-dependent functionality into separate standalone modules.
The product or code uses machine-dependent functionality, but it does not sufficiently encapsulate or isolate this functionality from the rest of the code.
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/status codes that could be generated by a function. This type of problem is most often found in conditions that are rarely encountered during the normal operation of the product. Presumably, most bugs related to common conditions are found and eliminated during development and testing. In some cases, the attacker can directly control or influence the environment to trigger the rare conditions.
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
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 incorrectly checks a return value from a function, which prevents it from detecting errors or exceptional conditions.
The product detects a specific error, but takes no actions to handle the error.
[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 induce unexpected behavior unnoticed.
The product encounters an error but does not provide a status code or return value to indicate that an error has occurred.
A function or operation returns an incorrect return value or status code that does not indicate the true result of execution, causing the product to modify its behavior based on the incorrect result.
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.
Catching NullPointerException should not be used as an alternative to programmatic checks to prevent dereferencing a null pointer.
Catching overly broad exceptions promotes complex error handling code that is more likely to contain security vulnerabilities.
The product throws or raises an overly broad exceptions that can hide important details and produce inappropriate responses to certain conditions.
The product does not use a standardized method for handling errors throughout the code, which might introduce inconsistent error handling and resultant weaknesses.
The code has a return statement inside a finally block, which will cause any thrown exception in the try block to be discarded.
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 than necessary.
The product does not return custom error pages to the user, possibly exposing sensitive information.
Weaknesses in this category are related to incorrectly written expressions within code.
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to false.
The product contains an expression that will always evaluate to true.
The product uses an expression in which operator precedence causes incorrect logic to be used.
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 that many different weaknesses and variants have been discovered.
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 does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory names. The associated manipulations are intended to generate multiple names for the same object.
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 unintended resource.
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 associated with the file name, causing the product to perform file-based operations on a resource that is not a 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 creates a temporary file in a directory whose permissions allow unintended actors to determine the file's existence or otherwise access that file.
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 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 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 resources in a parent path.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper management of handlers.
The wrong "handler" is assigned to process an object.
A handler is not available or implemented.
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of sensitive 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 provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
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 (2) differences from other products with equivalent functionality.
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 about the state of the product, such as whether a particular operation was successful or not.
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
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 resource available to unauthorized actors.
The product's intended functionality exposes information to certain actors in accordance with the developer's security policy, but this information is regarded as sensitive according to the intended security policies of other stakeholders such as the product's administrator, users, or others whose information is being processed.
The product inserts sensitive information into debugging code, which could expose this information if the debugging code is not disabled in production.
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
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 information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected.
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 underlying system as the product does.
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 uses a cache that contains sensitive information, but the cache can be read by an actor outside of the intended control sphere.
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.
The product stores sensitive information in a file system or device that does not have built-in access control.
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 original, sensitive information.
Weaknesses in this category occur in behaviors that are used for initialization and breakdown.
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 resource available to unauthorized actors.
The product initializes critical internal variables or data stores using inputs that can be modified by untrusted actors.
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 error or a hardware security module (HSM) cannot be activated, which can cause the product to execute in a less secure fashion than intended by the administrator.
The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.
The product initializes data using hard-coded values that act as network resource identifiers.
The product initializes a data element using a hard-coded literal that is not a simple integer or static constant element.
The product initializes or sets a resource with a default that is intended to be changed by the product's installer, administrator, or maintainer, but the default is not secure.
Weaknesses in this category are related to errors in the management of cryptographic keys.
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
Nonces should be used for the present occasion and only once.
The product uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
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 attempts to access a given resource. The weaknesses in this category could lead to a degradation of access to system assets if they are not addressed.
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 service to legitimate users by causing their accounts to be locked out.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the handling of memory buffers within a software system.
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
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 writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
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.
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 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 of the buffer.
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 required properties.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper calculation or conversion of numbers.
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.
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 original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
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 correct result.
A product calculates or uses an incorrect maximum or minimum value that is 1 more, or 1 less, than the correct value.
The product divides a value by zero.
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 values are used in a sensitive context, then dangerous behaviors may occur.
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.
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 or indeterminate result.
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 part, causing an incorrect result.
The product parses numeric input assuming base 10 (decimal) values, but it does not account for inputs that use a different base number (radix).
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper assignment or handling of permissions.
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
A product defines a set of insecure permissions that are inherited by objects that are created by the program.
A product inherits a set of insecure permissions for an object, e.g. when copying from an archive file, without user awareness or involvement.
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 product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
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. the zone or domain).
The product declares a critical variable, field, or member to be public when intended security policy requires it to be private.
The product defines a public method that reads or modifies a private variable.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of pointers.
A function can return a pointer to memory that is outside of the buffer that the pointer is expected to reference.
In C and C++, one may often accidentally refer to the wrong memory due to the semantics of when math operations are implicitly scaled.
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 dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
The product sets a pointer to a specific address other than NULL or 0.
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.
The product obtains a value from an untrusted source, converts this value to a pointer, and dereferences the resulting pointer.
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 resulting pointer.
The product accesses or uses a pointer that has not been initialized.
The product dereferences a pointer that contains a location for memory that was previously valid, but is no longer valid.
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 agent do things that are not ordinarily allowed. For example, there are privileges which allow an agent to perform maintenance functions such as restart a computer.
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 jail.
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 other weaknesses.
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
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.
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 combination.
The product does not properly manage privileges while it is switching between different contexts that have different privileges or spheres of control.
The elevated privilege level required to perform operations such as chroot() should be dropped immediately after the operation is performed.
The product attempts to drop privileges but does not check or incorrectly checks to see if the drop succeeded.
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 handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
The product mixes trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure or structured message.
The product contains a clone() method that does not call super.clone() to obtain the new object.
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 function to be called incorrectly.
Weaknesses in this category are related to a software system's random number generation.
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 number of possible random values is smaller than needed by the product, making it more susceptible to brute force attacks.
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) in a security context, but the PRNG's algorithm is not cryptographically strong.
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.
An exact value or random number can be precisely predicted by observing previous values.
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 value that could be generated.
The product uses a constant value, name, or reference, but this value can (or should) vary across different environments.
The device uses an algorithm that is predictable and generates a pseudo-random number.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper handling of locks that are used to control access to resources.
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 control.
The product does not lock or does not correctly lock a resource when the product must have exclusive access to the resource.
A product does not check to see if a lock is present before performing sensitive operations on a resource.
The product uses double-checked locking to access a resource without the overhead of explicit synchronization, but the locking is insufficient.
The product locks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
The product unlocks a critical resource more times than intended, leading to an unexpected state in the system.
The product attempts to unlock a resource that is not locked.
The product contains multiple threads or executable segments that are waiting for each other to release a necessary lock, resulting in deadlock.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper management of system resources.
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
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 descriptors.
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) large number of requests for resources.
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 or code.
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
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 cursor "dangling."
The product constructs the name of a file or other resource using input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the resulting name.
The product uses multiple resources that can have the same identifier, in a context in which unique identifiers are required.
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.
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
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 release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
The product releases a resource that is still intended to be used by itself or another actor.
The product uses or accesses a resource that has not been initialized.
The product does not initialize a critical resource.
The product uses or accesses a file descriptor after it has been closed.
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 properly restrict reading from or writing to dynamically-identified variables.
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 it does not properly control which attributes can be modified.
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 amount of power that its operation consumes.
The product initializes or sets a resource with a default that is intended to be changed by the product's installer, administrator, or maintainer, but the default is not secure.
The product attempts to close or release a resource or handle more than once, without any successful open between the close operations.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the improper handling of signals.
The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.
Weaknesses in this category are related to improper management of system state.
One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.
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 operations in a security-relevant manner.
The product sends non-cloned mutable data as an argument to a method or function.
Sending non-cloned mutable data as a return value may result in that data being altered or deleted by the calling function.
The product invokes code that is believed to be reentrant, but the code performs a call that unintentionally produces a nested invocation of the non-reentrant code.
Weaknesses in this category are related to the creation and modification of strings.
The product uses a function that accepts a format string as an argument, but the format string originates from an external source.
The product does not correctly calculate the length of strings that can contain wide or multi-byte characters.
The product accidentally uses the wrong operator, which changes the logic in security-relevant ways.
Weaknesses in this category are caused by improper data type transformation or improper handling of multiple data types.
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 values are used in a sensitive context, then dangerous behaviors may occur.
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 incompatible with the original type.
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.
Weaknesses in this category are related to or introduced in the User Interface (UI).
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 inflicting damage to their system.
The user interface provides a warning to a user regarding dangerous or sensitive operations, but the warning is not noticeable enough to warrant attention.
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 implemented.
A UI function is obsolete and the product does not warn the user.
The UI performs the wrong action with respect to the user's request.
The product does not mask passwords during entry, increasing the potential for attackers to observe and capture passwords.
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 identical glyphs (homoglyphs), which may cause the user to misinterpret a glyph and perform an unintended, insecure action.
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 confusion about which interface the user is interacting with.
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 duration of multiple requests. The weaknesses in this category could lead to a degradation of the quality of session management if they are not addressed.
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.
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 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 required sequence.