CWE - CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound (4.18)

Home > CWE List > CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound (4.18)

CWE Glossary Definition

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

Weakness ID: 190

Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: 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.

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 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. Diagram for CWE-190

Alternate Terms

Overflow

The terms "overflow" and "wraparound" are used interchangeably by some people, but they can have more precise distinctions by others. See Terminology Notes.

Wraparound

The terms "overflow" and "wraparound" are used interchangeably by some people, but they can have more precise distinctions by others. See Terminology Notes.

wrap, wrap-around, wrap around

Alternate spellings of "wraparound"

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
DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory); DoS: Instability	Scope: Availability This weakness can generally lead to undefined behavior and therefore crashes. When the calculated result is used for resource allocation, this weakness can cause too many (or too few) resources to be allocated, possibly enabling crashes if the product requests more resources than can be provided.
Modify Memory	Scope: Integrity If the value in question is important to data (as opposed to flow), simple data corruption has occurred. Also, if the overflow/wraparound results in other conditions such as buffer overflows, further memory corruption may occur.
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Bypass Protection Mechanism	Scope: Confidentiality, Availability, Access Control This weakness can sometimes trigger buffer overflows, which can be used to execute arbitrary code. This is usually outside the scope of the product's implicit security policy.
Alter Execution Logic; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)	Scope: Availability, Other If the overflow/wraparound occurs in a loop index variable, this could cause the loop to terminate at the wrong time - too early, too late, or not at all (i.e., infinite loops). With too many iterations, some loops could consume too many resources such as memory, file handles, etc., possibly leading to a crash or other DoS.
Bypass Protection Mechanism	Scope: Access Control If integer values are used in security-critical decisions, such as calculating quotas or allocation limits, integer overflows can be used to cause an incorrect security decision.

Potential Mitigations

Phase(s)	Mitigation
Requirements	Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Requirements	Strategy: Language Selection Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design	Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
Implementation	Strategy: Input Validation Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
Implementation	Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
Architecture and Design	For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Implementation	Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

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	Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.	682	Incorrect Calculation
ParentOf	Chain Chain - a Compound Element that is a sequence of two or more separate weaknesses that can be closely linked together within software. One weakness, X, can directly create the conditions that are necessary to cause another weakness, Y, to enter a vulnerable condition. When this happens, CWE refers to X as "primary" to Y, and Y is "resultant" from X. Chains can involve more than two weaknesses, and in some cases, they might have a tree-like structure.	680	Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow
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.	128	Wrap-around Error
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.	1339	Insufficient Precision or Accuracy of a Real Number
CanPrecede	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.	119	Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer

Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)

Nature	Type	ID	Name
MemberOf	Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	189	Numeric Errors

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

Nature	Type	ID	Name
ChildOf	Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things.	682	Incorrect Calculation

Relevant to the view "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms" (View-700)

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

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	This weakness may become security critical when determining the offset or size in behaviors such as memory allocation, copying, and concatenation.

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 (Often Prevalent)

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Likelihood Of Exploit

Medium

Demonstrative Examples

Example 1

The following image processing code allocates a table for images.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

img_t table_ptr; /*struct containing img data, 10kB each*/
int num_imgs;
...
num_imgs = get_num_imgs();
table_ptr = (img_t*)malloc(sizeof(img_t)*num_imgs);
...

This code intends to allocate a table of size num_imgs, however as num_imgs grows large, the calculation determining the size of the list will eventually overflow (CWE-190). This will result in a very small list to be allocated instead. If the subsequent code operates on the list as if it were num_imgs long, it may result in many types of out-of-bounds problems (CWE-119).

Example 2

The following code excerpt from OpenSSH 3.3 demonstrates a classic case of integer overflow:

(bad code)

Example Language: C

nresp = packet_get_int();
if (nresp > 0) {

response = xmalloc(nresp*sizeof(char*));
for (i = 0; i < nresp; i++) response[i] = packet_get_string(NULL);

}

If nresp has the value 1073741824 and sizeof(char*) has its typical value of 4, then the result of the operation nresp*sizeof(char*) overflows, and the argument to xmalloc() will be 0. Most malloc() implementations will happily allocate a 0-byte buffer, causing the subsequent loop iterations to overflow the heap buffer response.

Example 3

Integer overflows can be complicated and difficult to detect. The following example is an attempt to show how an integer overflow may lead to undefined looping behavior:

(bad code)

Example Language: C

short int bytesRec = 0;
char buf[SOMEBIGNUM];

while(bytesRec < MAXGET) {

bytesRec += getFromInput(buf+bytesRec);

}

In the above case, it is entirely possible that bytesRec may overflow, continuously creating a lower number than MAXGET and also overwriting the first MAXGET-1 bytes of buf.

Example 4

In this example the method determineFirstQuarterRevenue is used to determine the first quarter revenue for an accounting/business application. The method retrieves the monthly sales totals for the first three months of the year, calculates the first quarter sales totals from the monthly sales totals, calculates the first quarter revenue based on the first quarter sales, and finally saves the first quarter revenue results to the database.

(bad code)

Example Language: C

#define JAN 1
#define FEB 2
#define MAR 3

short getMonthlySales(int month) {...}

float calculateRevenueForQuarter(short quarterSold) {...}

int determineFirstQuarterRevenue() {

// Variable for sales revenue for the quarter
float quarterRevenue = 0.0f;

short JanSold = getMonthlySales(JAN); /* Get sales in January */
short FebSold = getMonthlySales(FEB); /* Get sales in February */
short MarSold = getMonthlySales(MAR); /* Get sales in March */

// Calculate quarterly total
short quarterSold = JanSold + FebSold + MarSold;

// Calculate the total revenue for the quarter
quarterRevenue = calculateRevenueForQuarter(quarterSold);

saveFirstQuarterRevenue(quarterRevenue);

return 0;

}

However, in this example the primitive type short int is used for both the monthly and the quarterly sales variables. In C the short int primitive type has a maximum value of 32768. This creates a potential integer overflow if the value for the three monthly sales adds up to more than the maximum value for the short int primitive type. An integer overflow can lead to data corruption, unexpected behavior, infinite loops and system crashes. To correct the situation the appropriate primitive type should be used, as in the example below, and/or provide some validation mechanism to ensure that the maximum value for the primitive type is not exceeded.

(good code)

Example Language: C

...
float calculateRevenueForQuarter(long quarterSold) {...}

int determineFirstQuarterRevenue() {

...
// Calculate quarterly total
long quarterSold = JanSold + FebSold + MarSold;

// Calculate the total revenue for the quarter
quarterRevenue = calculateRevenueForQuarter(quarterSold);

...

}

Note that an integer overflow could also occur if the quarterSold variable has a primitive type long but the method calculateRevenueForQuarter has a parameter of type short.

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-2025-27363	Font rendering library does not properly handle assigning a signed short value to an unsigned long (CWE-195), leading to an integer wraparound (CWE-190), causing too small of a buffer (CWE-131), leading to an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787).
CVE-2021-43537	Chain: in a web browser, an unsigned 64-bit integer is forcibly cast to a 32-bit integer (CWE-681) and potentially leading to an integer overflow (CWE-190). If an integer overflow occurs, this can cause heap memory corruption (CWE-122)
CVE-2019-19911	Chain: Python library does not limit the resources used to process images that specify a very large number of bands (CWE-1284), leading to excessive memory consumption (CWE-789) or an integer overflow (CWE-190).
CVE-2022-0545	Chain: 3D renderer has an integer overflow (CWE-190) leading to write-what-where condition (CWE-123) using a crafted image.
CVE-2021-30860	Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) leads to integer overflow (CWE-190) in mobile OS, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2021-30663	Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) leads to integer overflow (CWE-190) in mobile OS, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2018-10887	Chain: unexpected sign extension (CWE-194) leads to integer overflow (CWE-190), causing an out-of-bounds read (CWE-125)
CVE-2019-1010006	Chain: compiler optimization (CWE-733) removes or modifies code used to detect integer overflow (CWE-190), allowing out-of-bounds write (CWE-787).
CVE-2010-1866	Chain: integer overflow (CWE-190) causes a negative signed value, which later bypasses a maximum-only check (CWE-839), leading to heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122).
CVE-2010-2753	Chain: integer overflow leads to use-after-free
CVE-2005-1513	Chain: integer overflow in securely-coded mail program leads to buffer overflow. In 2005, this was regarded as unrealistic to exploit, but in 2020, it was rediscovered to be easier to exploit due to evolutions of the technology.
CVE-2002-0391	Integer overflow via a large number of arguments.
CVE-2002-0639	Integer overflow in OpenSSH as listed in the demonstrative examples.
CVE-2005-1141	Image with large width and height leads to integer overflow.
CVE-2005-0102	Length value of -1 leads to allocation of 0 bytes and resultant heap overflow.
CVE-2004-2013	Length value of -1 leads to allocation of 0 bytes and resultant heap overflow.
CVE-2017-1000121	chain: unchecked message size metadata allows integer overflow (CWE-190) leading to buffer overflow (CWE-119).
CVE-2013-1591	Chain: an integer overflow (CWE-190) in the image size calculation causes an infinite loop (CWE-835) which sequentially allocates buffers without limits (CWE-1325) until the stack is full.

Detection Methods

Method	Details
Automated Static Analysis	This weakness can often be detected using automated static analysis tools. Many modern tools use data flow analysis or constraint-based techniques to minimize the number of false positives. Effectiveness: High
Black Box	Sometimes, evidence of this weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results. Effectiveness: Moderate Note:Without visibility into the code, black box methods may not be able to sufficiently distinguish this weakness from others, requiring follow-up manual methods to diagnose the underlying problem.
Manual Analysis	This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual static analysis is useful for evaluating the correctness of allocation calculations. This can be useful for detecting overflow conditions (CWE-190) or similar weaknesses that might have serious security impacts on the program. Effectiveness: High Note:These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode	According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Effectiveness: High
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation	According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code	According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code	According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer Effectiveness: High
Architecture or Design Review	According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) Effectiveness: High

Functional Areas

Number Processing
Memory Management
Counters

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.	738	CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 5 - Integers (INT)
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.	802	2010 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	865	2011 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	872	CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 04 - Integers (INT)
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	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	884	CWE Cross-section
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	998	SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1137	SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 03. Numeric Types and Operations (NUM)
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1158	SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)
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	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1200	Weaknesses in the 2019 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors
MemberOf	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1337	Weaknesses in the 2021 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1350	Weaknesses in the 2020 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1387	Weaknesses in the 2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.	1408	Comprehensive Categorization: Incorrect Calculation
MemberOf	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1425	Weaknesses in the 2023 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf	ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries).	1430	Weaknesses in the 2024 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses

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 Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments

Be careful of terminology problems with "overflow," "underflow," and "wraparound" - see Terminology Notes. 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.

Suggestions

CWE-ID	Comment
CWE-191	Integer Underflow (Wrap or Wraparound). Consider CWE-191 when the result is less than the minimum value that can be represented (sometimes called "underflows").

Notes

Relationship

Integer overflows can be primary to buffer overflows when they cause less memory to be allocated than expected.

Terminology

"Integer overflow" is sometimes used to cover several types of errors, including signedness errors, or buffer overflows that involve manipulation of integer data types instead of characters. Part of the confusion results from the fact that 0xffffffff is -1 in a signed context. Other confusion also arises because of the role that integer overflows have in chains.

A "wraparound" is a well-defined, standard behavior that follows specific rules for how to handle situations when the intended numeric value is too large or too small to be represented, as specified in standards such as C11.

"Overflow" is sometimes conflated with "wraparound" but typically indicates a non-standard or undefined behavior.

The "overflow" term is sometimes used to indicate cases where either the maximum or the minimum is exceeded, but others might only use "overflow" to indicate exceeding the maximum while using "underflow" for exceeding the minimum.

Some people use "overflow" to mean any value outside the representable range - whether greater than the maximum, or less than the minimum - but CWE uses "underflow" for cases in which the intended result is less than the minimum.

See [REF-1440] for additional explanation of the ambiguity of terminology.

Other

While there may be circumstances in which the logic intentionally relies on wrapping - such as with modular arithmetic in timers or counters - it can have security consequences if the wrap is unexpected. This is especially the case if the integer overflow can be triggered using user-supplied inputs.

Taxonomy Mappings

Mapped Taxonomy Name	Node ID	Fit	Mapped Node Name
PLOVER	Integer overflow (wrap or wraparound)
7 Pernicious Kingdoms	Integer Overflow
CLASP	Integer overflow
CERT C Secure Coding	INT18-C	CWE More Abstract	Evaluate integer expressions in a larger size before comparing or assigning to that size
CERT C Secure Coding	INT30-C	CWE More Abstract	Ensure that unsigned integer operations do not wrap
CERT C Secure Coding	INT32-C	Imprecise	Ensure that operations on signed integers do not result in overflow
CERT C Secure Coding	INT35-C	Evaluate integer expressions in a larger size before comparing or assigning to that size
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM07-C	CWE More Abstract	Ensure that the arguments to calloc(), when multiplied, do not wrap
CERT C Secure Coding	MEM35-C	Allocate sufficient memory for an object
WASC	3	Integer Overflows
Software Fault Patterns	SFP1	Glitch in computation
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 3-3	Req SR 3.5
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 3-3	Req SR 7.2
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SR-2
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SI-2
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SVV-1
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-1	Req SVV-3
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-2	Req CR 3.5
ISA/IEC 62443	Part 4-2	Req CR 7.2

Related Attack Patterns

CAPEC-ID	Attack Pattern Name
CAPEC-92	Forced Integer Overflow

References

[REF-145] Yves Younan. "An overview of common programming security vulnerabilities and possible solutions". Student thesis section 5.4.3. 2003-08.
<https://fort-knox.org/thesis.pdf>. (URL validated: 2025年07月24日)

[REF-146] blexim. "Basic Integer Overflows". Phrack - Issue 60, Chapter 10. 2002年12月28日.
<https://phrack.org/issues/60/10>. (URL validated: 2025年07月24日)

[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 20, "Integer Overflows" Page 620. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002年12月04日.
<https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.

[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 7: Integer Overflows." Page 119. McGraw-Hill. 2010.

[REF-106] David LeBlanc and Niels Dekker. "SafeInt".
<https://github.com/dcleblanc/SafeInt/>. (URL validated: 2025年07月29日)

[REF-150] Johannes Ullrich. "Top 25 Series - Rank 17 - Integer Overflow Or Wraparound". SANS Software Security Institute. 2010年03月18日.
<http://software-security.sans.org/blog/2010/03/18/top-25-series-rank-17-integer-overflow-or-wraparound>.

[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 6, "Signed Integer Boundaries", Page 220. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.

[REF-1440] "Integer overflow". Definition variations and ambiguity. Wikipedia. 2024年06月11日.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_overflow>. (URL validated: 2024年06月30日)

[REF-1479] Gregory Larsen, E. Kenneth Hong Fong, David A. Wheeler and Rama S. Moorthy. "State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation". 2014-07.
<https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx>. (URL validated: 2025年09月05日)

[REF-1482] D3FEND. "D3FEND: D3-TL Trusted Library".
<https://d3fend.mitre.org/technique/d3f:TrustedLibrary/>. (URL validated: 2025年09月06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)
Contributions
Contribution Date	Contributor	Organization
2023年04月25日	"Mapping CWE to 62443" Sub-Working Group	CWE-CAPEC ICS/OT SIG
2023年04月25日	Suggested mappings to ISA/IEC 62443.
2024年02月29日 (CWE 4.15, 2024年07月16日)	Abhi Balakrishnan
2024年02月29日 (CWE 4.15, 2024年07月16日)	Provided diagram to improve CWE usability
2025年06月16日 (CWE 4.18, 2025年09月09日)	Zheng Zhang	Purdue University
2025年06月16日 (CWE 4.18, 2025年09月09日)	reported CVE-2022-21668 as an incorrect observed example for this entry, when CVE-2019-19911 was intended
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 Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
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 Applicable_Platforms, Observed_Examples
2024年11月19日 (CWE 4.16, 2024年11月19日)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2024年11月19日 (CWE 4.16, 2024年11月19日)	updated Relationships
2024年07月16日 (CWE 4.15, 2024年07月16日)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2024年07月16日 (CWE 4.15, 2024年07月16日)	updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Mapping_Notes, Modes_of_Introduction, Other_Notes, References, Relationship_Notes, Terminology_Notes
2024年02月29日 (CWE 4.14, 2024年02月29日)	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2024年02月29日 (CWE 4.14, 2024年02月29日)	updated Observed_Examples
2023年10月26日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023年10月26日	updated Observed_Examples
2023年06月29日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023年06月29日	updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023年04月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023年04月27日	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2023年01月31日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2023年01月31日	updated Description, Detection_Factors
2022年10月13日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022年10月13日	updated Observed_Examples
2022年06月28日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2022年06月28日	updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2021年07月20日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021年07月20日	updated Relationships
2021年03月15日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2021年03月15日	updated Potential_Mitigations
2020年12月10日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020年12月10日	updated Observed_Examples
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 Observed_Examples
2020年02月24日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2020年02月24日	updated Relationships
2019年09月19日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019年09月19日	updated Relationships
2019年01月03日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2019年01月03日	updated Relationships
2018年03月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2018年03月27日	updated References
2017年11月08日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017年11月08日	updated Functional_Areas, Observed_Examples, References, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017年01月19日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2017年01月19日	updated Relationships
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 Detection_Factors, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2013年07月17日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2013年07月17日	updated References
2012年10月30日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012年10月30日	updated Potential_Mitigations
2012年05月11日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2012年05月11日	updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships
2011年09月13日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011年09月13日	updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011年06月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011年06月27日	updated Relationships
2011年06月01日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2011年06月01日	updated Common_Consequences
2010年09月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010年09月27日	updated Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
2010年06月21日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010年06月21日	updated Common_Consequences, Potential_Mitigations, References
2010年04月05日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010年04月05日	updated Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns
2010年02月16日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2010年02月16日	updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, Functional_Areas, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings, Terminology_Notes
2009年10月29日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009年10月29日	updated Relationships
2009年05月27日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009年05月27日	updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009年01月12日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2009年01月12日	updated Description, Name
2008年11月24日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008年11月24日	updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008年10月14日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008年10月14日	updated Common_Consequences, Description, Potential_Mitigations, Terminology_Notes
2008年09月08日	CWE Content Team	MITRE
2008年09月08日	updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Terminology_Notes
Previous Entry Names
Change Date	Previous Entry Name
2009年01月12日	Integer Overflow (Wrap or Wraparound)

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