CWE-243 Variante Borrador High likelihood

Creation of chroot Jail Without Changing Working Directory

This vulnerability occurs when a program creates a chroot jail but fails to change its current working directory afterward. Because the process's working directory remains outside the jail,…

Definición

What is CWE-243?

This vulnerability occurs when a program creates a chroot jail but fails to change its current working directory afterward. Because the process's working directory remains outside the jail, attackers can use relative paths to access files and directories that should be restricted.
The chroot() system call isolates a process within a specific directory subtree, known as a jail. However, a critical step is often missed: chroot() does not automatically change the process's current working directory. If the working directory remains outside the new root, any relative path operations (like opening '../etc/passwd') can still traverse the original filesystem, completely bypassing the intended isolation. To properly secure the jail, you must immediately call chdir('/') after chroot(). This changes the working directory to be inside the new root, ensuring all subsequent relative path references are confined. Without this step, the chroot jail provides a false sense of security and is trivial for an attacker to escape.
Impacto en el mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-243

Todavía no hay CVEs públicos enlazados a esta CWE en el catálogo de MITRE.

Cómo lo explotan los atacantes

Ruta del atacante paso a paso

  1. 1

    Identifica una ruta de código que maneje entrada no confiable sin validación.

  2. 2

    Crea un payload que ejercite el comportamiento inseguro — inyección, traversal, overflow o abuso de lógica.

  3. 3

    Envía el payload a través de una solicitud normal y observa la reacción de la aplicación.

  4. 4

    Itera hasta que la respuesta filtre datos, ejecute código del atacante o escale privilegios.

Ejemplo de código vulnerable

Vulnerable C

Consider the following source code from a (hypothetical) FTP server:

Vulnerable C
chroot("/var/ftproot");
  ...
  fgets(filename, sizeof(filename), network);
  localfile = fopen(filename, "r");
  while ((len = fread(buf, 1, sizeof(buf), localfile)) != EOF) {
  	fwrite(buf, 1, sizeof(buf), network);
  }
  fclose(localfile);
Ejemplo de código seguro

Secure pseudo

Seguro pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Lista de prevención

How to prevent CWE-243

  • Architecture Use safe-by-default frameworks and APIs that prevent the unsafe pattern from being expressible.
  • Implementation Validate input at trust boundaries; use allowlists, not denylists.
  • Implementation Apply the principle of least privilege to credentials, file paths, and runtime permissions.
  • Testing Cover this weakness in CI: SAST rules + targeted unit tests for the data flow.
  • Operation Monitor logs for the runtime signals listed in the next section.
Señales de detección

How to detect CWE-243

Automated Static Analysis High

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.)

CWE-243

Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.

Plexicus turns CWE catalogs into evidence: every CWE-pattern is matched against your real code graph, reach is proven on a sandbox clone, and verified findings ship as reviewed PRs.

Preguntas frecuentes

Frequently asked questions

¿Qué es CWE-243?

This vulnerability occurs when a program creates a chroot jail but fails to change its current working directory afterward. Because the process's working directory remains outside the jail, attackers can use relative paths to access files and directories that should be restricted.

¿Qué gravedad tiene CWE-243?

MITRE califica la probabilidad de explotación como Alta — esta debilidad se explota activamente en la práctica y debe priorizarse para su remediación.

¿Qué lenguajes o plataformas se ven afectados por CWE-243?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: C, C++, Unix.

¿Cómo puedo prevenir CWE-243?

Use safe-by-default frameworks, validate untrusted input at trust boundaries, and apply the principle of least privilege. Cover the data-flow signature in CI with SAST.

¿Cómo detecta y corrige Plexicus CWE-243?

El motor SAST de Plexicus detecta la firma de flujo de datos para CWE-243 en cada commit. Cuando hay coincidencia, nuestro agente Codex Remedium abre un PR de corrección con el código corregido, las pruebas y un resumen de una línea para el revisor.

¿Dónde puedo aprender más sobre CWE-243?

MITRE publica la definición canónica en https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/243.html. También puedes consultar la documentación de OWASP y NIST para guías relacionadas.

Debilidades relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-243

¿Listo para validar lo que importa?

Listo para validar lo que importa.

Plexicus es Proof-Driven AppSec: hallazgos validados, comprensión contextual y remediación revisada — anclada en evidencia, acotada contigo.

Calificación

Comprueba si el AI Swarm Pentest encaja en tu entorno.

Déjanos el contexto mínimo. Revisaremos el alcance y te indicaremos el siguiente paso comercial.

Antes de enviar — verifica que encajas

0 / 280

Sin compromiso. Si no encajas, te lo decimos.

SAMPLE HANDOVER · ILLUSTRATIVE

Sample evidence handover

A trimmed view of what your team receives at the end of an AI Swarm Pentest engagement. Real engagements include full technical evidence, executive narrative, and a remediation plan.

VALIDATED FINDING Evidence attached

Server-Side Request Forgery in webhooks/receiver

demo-project/sample-app · src/webhooks/receiver.py:42

SeverityHigh CVSS 3.18.6 Priority79 Confirmedvia replay

Untrusted caller-supplied URLs reach an internal egress without an allowlist. Replayed in a sandbox against a fresh authorized target — the same control was validated to fail twice.

REVIEWER-READY REMEDIATION Merge-ready PR

Validate the target URL against an allowlist of permitted hostnames. Reject private/internal IP ranges. Enforce HTTPS only.

plexicus/remediation/webhooks-ssrf 3 changed · 0 new files
42resp = requests.get(target_url)
42+if not is_allowed_host(target_url):
43+  raise WebhookRejected(target_url)
44+resp = requests.get(target_url, timeout=5)
Every engagement hands over:
  • Executive briefing
  • Validated findings list
  • Merge-ready PRs
  • Compliance mapping (NIS2 · DORA · CRA)
Ronda privada Para inversores