Process control vulnerabilities of the first type occur when either data enters the application from an untrusted source and the data is used as part of a string representing a command that is executed by the application. By executing the command, the application gives an attacker a privilege or capability that the attacker would not otherwise have.
| Impact | Details |
|---|---|
|
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands |
Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability |
| Phase(s) | Mitigation |
|---|---|
|
Architecture and Design |
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks Libraries that are loaded should be well understood and come from a trusted source. The application can execute code contained in the native libraries, which often contain calls that are susceptible to other security problems, such as buffer overflows or command injection. All native libraries should be validated to determine if the application requires the use of the library. It is very difficult to determine what these native libraries actually do, and the potential for malicious code is high. In addition, the potential for an inadvertent mistake in these native libraries is also high, as many are written in C or C++ and may be susceptible to buffer overflow or race condition problems. To help prevent buffer overflow attacks, validate all input to native calls for content and length. If the native library does not come from a trusted source, review the source code of the library. The library should be built from the reviewed source before using it.
|
| Nature | Type | ID | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChildOf | Base Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource. | 73 | External Control of File Name or Path |
| Nature | Type | ID | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| MemberOf | Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. | 1011 | Authorize Actors |
| Nature | Type | ID | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChildOf | Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. | 20 | Improper Input Validation |
| Phase | Note |
|---|---|
| Implementation | REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic. |
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Example 1
The following code uses System.loadLibrary() to load code from a native library named library.dll, which is normally found in a standard system directory.
The problem here is that System.loadLibrary() accepts a library name, not a path, for the library to be loaded. From the Java 1.4.2 API documentation this function behaves as follows [1]: A file containing native code is loaded from the local file system from a place where library files are conventionally obtained. The details of this process are implementation-dependent. The mapping from a library name to a specific filename is done in a system-specific manner. If an attacker is able to place a malicious copy of library.dll higher in the search order than file the application intends to load, then the application will load the malicious copy instead of the intended file. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with elevated privileges, which means the contents of the attacker's library.dll will now be run with elevated privileges, possibly giving them complete control of the system.
Example 2
The following code from a privileged application uses a registry entry to determine the directory in which it is installed and loads a library file based on a relative path from the specified directory.
The code in this example allows an attacker to load an arbitrary library, from which code will be executed with the elevated privilege of the application, by modifying a registry key to specify a different path containing a malicious version of INITLIB. Because the program does not validate the value read from the environment, if an attacker can control the value of APPHOME, they can fool the application into running malicious code.
Example 3
The following code is from a web-based administration utility that allows users access to an interface through which they can update their profile on the system. The utility makes use of a library named liberty.dll, which is normally found in a standard system directory.
The problem is that the program does not specify an absolute path for liberty.dll. If an attacker is able to place a malicious library named liberty.dll higher in the search order than file the application intends to load, then the application will load the malicious copy instead of the intended file. Because of the nature of the application, it runs with elevated privileges, which means the contents of the attacker's liberty.dll will now be run with elevated privileges, possibly giving the attacker complete control of the system. The type of attack seen in this example is made possible because of the search order used by LoadLibrary() when an absolute path is not specified. If the current directory is searched before system directories, as was the case up until the most recent versions of Windows, then this type of attack becomes trivial if the attacker can execute the program locally. The search order is operating system version dependent, and is controlled on newer operating systems by the value of the registry key: HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\SafeDllSearchMode
| Method | Details |
|---|---|
|
Automated Static Analysis |
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness: High |
| Nature | Type | ID | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| MemberOf | CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. | 991 | SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment |
| MemberOf | CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. | 1403 | Comprehensive Categorization: Exposed Resource |
| Usage |
DISCOURAGED
(this CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
|
||||||||
| Reasons | Abstraction, Potential Deprecation, Other | ||||||||
|
Rationale |
This CWE entry is a Class, but it does not have Base-level children. Also, it combines multiple weaknesses that are related to the same behavior (process invocation). As a result, it might be Deprecated. | ||||||||
|
Comments |
This entry is classified in a part of CWE's hierarchy that does not have sufficiently low-level coverage, which might reflect a lack of classification-oriented weakness research in the software security community. Conduct careful root cause analysis to determine the original mistake that led to this weakness. If closer analysis reveals that this weakness is appropriate, then this might be the best available CWE to use for mapping. If no other option is available, then it is acceptable to map to this CWE. | ||||||||
|
Suggestions |
|
Maintenance
| Mapped Taxonomy Name | Node ID | Fit | Mapped Node Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Pernicious Kingdoms | Process Control |
| Submissions | ||
|---|---|---|
| Submission Date | Submitter | Organization |
|
2006年07月19日
(CWE Draft 3, 2006年07月19日) |
7 Pernicious Kingdoms | |
| Modifications | ||
| Modification Date | Modifier | Organization |
|
2025年09月09日
(CWE 4.18, 2025年09月09日) |
CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Functional_Areas | ||
|
2025年04月03日
(CWE 4.17, 2025年04月03日) |
CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Maintenance_Notes, Mapping_Notes | ||
| 2023年06月29日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Mapping_Notes | ||
| 2023年04月27日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Detection_Factors, Relationships | ||
| 2023年01月31日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Description, Maintenance_Notes, Related_Attack_Patterns | ||
| 2021年03月15日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Maintenance_Notes | ||
| 2020年06月25日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Relationships | ||
| 2020年02月24日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated References, Relationships, Type | ||
| 2017年11月08日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships | ||
| 2014年07月30日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Relationships | ||
| 2013年02月21日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Potential_Mitigations | ||
| 2012年05月11日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Relationships | ||
| 2011年06月01日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Common_Consequences | ||
| 2009年07月27日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Demonstrative_Examples | ||
| 2009年05月27日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Related_Attack_Patterns | ||
| 2008年11月24日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Description, Other_Notes | ||
| 2008年09月08日 | CWE Content Team | MITRE |
| updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings | ||
| 2008年07月01日 | Eric Dalci | Cigital |
| updated Time_of_Introduction | ||
Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE™) and the associated references from this website are subject to the Terms of Use. CWE is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and managed by the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI) which is operated by The MITRE Corporation (MITRE). Copyright © 2006–2025, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation.