CWE - CWE-415: Double Free (4.18)

Home > CWE List > CWE-415: Double Free (4.18)

CWE Glossary Definition

CWE-415: Double Free

Weakness ID: 415

Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Variant Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.

View customized information:

For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers. For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts. For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers. For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry. For users who want to customize what details are displayed.

Edit Custom Filter

Description

The product calls free() twice on the same memory address. Diagram for CWE-415

Alternate Terms

Double-free

Common Consequences

Section HelpThis table specifies different individual consequences associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.

Impact	Details
Modify Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands	Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability When a program calls free() twice with the same argument, the program's memory management data structures may become corrupted, potentially leading to the reading or modification of unexpected memory addresses. This corruption can cause the program to crash or, in some circumstances, cause two later calls to malloc() to return the same pointer. If malloc() returns the same value twice and the program later gives the attacker control over the data that is written into this doubly-allocated memory, the program becomes vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack. Doubly freeing memory may result in a write-what-where condition, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary code.

Impact

Details

Modify Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability

When a program calls free() twice with the same argument, the program's memory management data structures may become corrupted, potentially leading to the reading or modification of unexpected memory addresses. This corruption can cause the program to crash or, in some circumstances, cause two later calls to malloc() to return the same pointer. If malloc() returns the same value twice and the program later gives the attacker control over the data that is written into this doubly-allocated memory, the program becomes vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack.

Doubly freeing memory may result in a write-what-where condition, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary code.

Potential Mitigations

Phase(s)	Mitigation
Architecture and Design	Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation	Ensure that each allocation is freed only once. After freeing a chunk, set the pointer to NULL to ensure the pointer cannot be freed again. In complicated error conditions, be sure that clean-up routines respect the state of allocation properly. If the language is object oriented, ensure that object destructors delete each chunk of memory only once.
Implementation	Use a static analysis tool to find double free instances.

Relationships

Section Help This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.

Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)

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.	666	Operation on Resource in Wrong Phase of Lifetime
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.	825	Expired Pointer Dereference
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.	1341	Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle
PeerOf	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.	123	Write-what-where Condition
PeerOf	Variant Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.	416	Use After Free
CanFollow	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.	364	Signal Handler Race Condition

Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)

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.	672	Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release

Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305)

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.	672	Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release

Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)

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.	672	Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release

Modes Of Introduction

Section HelpThe different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.

Phase	Note
Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Section HelpThis listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.

Languages

C (Undetermined Prevalence)

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

Likelihood Of Exploit

High

Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

The following code shows a simple example of a double free vulnerability.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
...
if (abrt) {

free(ptr);

}
...
free(ptr);

Double free vulnerabilities have two common (and sometimes overlapping) causes:

Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances
Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for freeing the memory

Although some double free vulnerabilities are not much more complicated than this example, most are spread out across hundreds of lines of code or even different files. Programmers seem particularly susceptible to freeing global variables more than once.

Example 2

While contrived, this code should be exploitable on Linux distributions that do not ship with heap-chunk check summing turned on.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define BUFSIZE1 512
#define BUFSIZE2 ((BUFSIZE1/2) - 8)

int main(int argc, char **argv) {

char *buf1R1;
char *buf2R1;
char *buf1R2;
buf1R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE2);
buf2R1 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE2);
free(buf1R1);
free(buf2R1);
buf1R2 = (char *) malloc(BUFSIZE1);
strncpy(buf1R2, argv[1], BUFSIZE1-1);
free(buf2R1);
free(buf1R2);

}

Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference	Description
CVE-2006-5051	Chain: Signal handler contains too much functionality (CWE-828), introducing a race condition (CWE-362) that leads to a double free (CWE-415).
CVE-2004-0642	Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
CVE-2004-0772	Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
CVE-2005-1689	Double free resultant from certain error conditions.
CVE-2003-0545	Double free from invalid ASN.1 encoding.
CVE-2003-1048	Double free from malformed GIF.
CVE-2005-0891	Double free from malformed GIF.
CVE-2002-0059	Double free from malformed compressed data.

Detection Methods

Method	Details
Fuzzing	Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a powerful technique for generating large numbers of diverse inputs - either randomly or algorithmically - and dynamically invoking the code with those inputs. Even with random inputs, it is often capable of generating unexpected results such as crashes, memory corruption, or resource consumption. Fuzzing effectively produces repeatable test cases that clearly indicate bugs, which helps developers to diagnose the issues. Effectiveness: High
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

Method

Details

Fuzzing

Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a powerful technique for generating large numbers of diverse inputs - either randomly or algorithmically - and dynamically invoking the code with those inputs. Even with random inputs, it is often capable of generating unexpected results such as crashes, memory corruption, or resource consumption. Fuzzing effectively produces repeatable test cases that clearly indicate bugs, which helps developers to diagnose the issues.

Effectiveness: High

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

Functional Areas

Memory Management

Affected Resources

Memory

Memberships

Section HelpThis MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	398	7PK - Code Quality
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	742	CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 9 - Memory Management (MEM)
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	876	CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 08 - Memory Management (MEM)
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	969	SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Memory Release
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1162	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 08. Memory Management (MEM)
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1237	SFP Primary Cluster: Faulty Resource Release
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1399	Comprehensive Categorization: Memory Safety

Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage ALLOWED

(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments

Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

Notes

Relationship

This is usually resultant from another weakness, such as an unhandled error or race condition between threads. It could also be primary to weaknesses such as buffer overflows.

Theoretical

It could be argued that Double Free would be most appropriately located as a child of "Use after Free", but "Use" and "Release" are considered to be distinct operations within vulnerability theory, therefore this is more accurately "Release of a Resource after Expiration or Release", which doesn't exist yet.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
PLOVER	DFREE - Double-Free Vulnerability
7 Pernicious Kingdoms	Double Free
CLASP	Doubly freeing memory
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM00-C	Allocate and free memory in the same module, at the same level of abstraction
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM01-C	Store a new value in pointers immediately after free()
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM30-C	CWE More Specific	Do not access freed memory
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM31-C	Free dynamically allocated memory exactly once
Software Fault Patterns	SFP12	Faulty Memory Release

References

[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 8: C++ Catastrophes." Page 143. McGraw-Hill. 2010.

[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 7, "Double Frees", Page 379. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.

[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024年11月17日)

Content History

Submissions
Submission Date	Submitter	Organization
2006年07月19日 (CWE Draft 3, 2006年07月19日)	PLOVER
2006年07月19日 (CWE Draft 3, 2006年07月19日)
Modifications
Modification Date	Modifier	Organization
2025年09月09日 (CWE 4.18, 2025年09月09日)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2025年09月09日 (CWE 4.18, 2025年09月09日)	updated Functional_Areas
2025年04月03日 (CWE 4.17, 2025年04月03日)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2025年04月03日 (CWE 4.17, 2025年04月03日)	updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram
2023年06月29日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023年06月29日	updated Mapping_Notes
2023年04月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023年04月27日	updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2022年04月28日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022年04月28日	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples
2021年10月28日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021年10月28日	updated Relationships
2021年03月15日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021年03月15日	updated Maintenance_Notes, Theoretical_Notes
2020年12月10日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020年12月10日	updated Relationships
2020年08月20日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020年08月20日	updated Relationships
2020年06月25日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020年06月25日	updated Common_Consequences
2020年02月24日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020年02月24日	updated References, Relationships
2019年06月20日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019年06月20日	updated Relationships
2019年01月03日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019年01月03日	updated Relationships
2017年11月08日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017年11月08日	updated Likelihood_of_Exploit, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, White_Box_Definitions
2015年12月07日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2015年12月07日	updated Relationships
2014年07月30日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2014年07月30日	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012年05月11日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012年05月11日	updated References, Relationships
2011年09月13日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011年09月13日	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011年06月01日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011年06月01日	updated Common_Consequences
2010年12月13日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010年12月13日	updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2010年09月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010年09月27日	updated Relationships
2009年10月29日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009年10月29日	updated Other_Notes
2009年05月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009年05月27日	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2008年11月24日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008年11月24日	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008年09月08日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008年09月08日	updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description, Maintenance_Notes, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008年08月01日	KDM Analytics
2008年08月01日	added/updated white box definitions
2008年07月01日	Eric Dalci	Cigital
2008年07月01日	updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction

More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter.

Page Last Updated: September 09, 2025

MITRE

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.

HSSEDI