CWE-190
Integer Overflow or Wraparound
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.
Mitigation
Phase: Requirements
Description:
- 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.
Mitigation ID: MIT-3
Phase: Requirements
Strategy: Language Selection
Description:
- 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.
Mitigation ID: MIT-4
Phase: Architecture and Design
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
Description:
- 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]
Mitigation ID: MIT-8
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- 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.
Mitigation ID: MIT-36
Phase: Implementation
Description:
- 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.
Mitigation ID: MIT-15
Phase: Architecture and Design
Description:
- 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.
Mitigation ID: MIT-26
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Compilation or Build Hardening
Description:
- 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.
CAPEC-92: Forced Integer Overflow
This attack forces an integer variable to go out of range. The integer variable is often used as an offset such as size of memory allocation or similarly. The attacker would typically control the value of such variable and try to get it out of range. For instance the integer in question is incremented past the maximum possible value, it may wrap to become a very small, or negative number, therefore providing a very incorrect value which can lead to unexpected behavior. At worst the attacker can execute arbitrary code.