CWE-586 Base Borrador

Explicit Call to Finalize()

This vulnerability occurs when code directly calls an object's finalize() method from outside its designated finalizer context.

Definición

What is CWE-586?

This vulnerability occurs when code directly calls an object's finalize() method from outside its designated finalizer context.
Although the Java language specification technically permits calling an object's finalize() method explicitly, this practice is strongly discouraged and often leads to unexpected behavior. The primary issue is that it forces the finalization routine to execute prematurely, outside the control of the garbage collector, which can corrupt the object's state and break standard cleanup logic. Explicitly invoking finalize() typically causes the method to run multiple times: once during the manual call and again later when the garbage collector naturally disposes of the object. This double execution can trigger resource leaks, double-free errors, or other instability because cleanup code is not designed to be idempotent. Developers should rely on the garbage collector to manage finalization automatically and use try-with-resources or explicit close() methods for deterministic cleanup instead.
Impacto en el mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-586

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 Java

The following code fragment calls finalize() explicitly:

Vulnerable Java
```
// time to clean up* 
  widget.finalize();
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-586

  • Implementation / Testing Do not make explicit calls to finalize(). Use static analysis tools to spot such instances.
Señales de detección

How to detect CWE-586

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-586

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-586?

This vulnerability occurs when code directly calls an object's finalize() method from outside its designated finalizer context.

¿Qué gravedad tiene CWE-586?

MITRE no ha publicado una calificación de probabilidad de explotación para esta debilidad. Trátala como de impacto medio hasta que tu modelo de amenazas demuestre lo contrario.

¿Qué lenguajes o plataformas se ven afectados por CWE-586?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Java.

¿Cómo puedo prevenir CWE-586?

Do not make explicit calls to finalize(). Use static analysis tools to spot such instances.

¿Cómo detecta y corrige Plexicus CWE-586?

El motor SAST de Plexicus detecta la firma de flujo de datos para CWE-586 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-586?

MITRE publica la definición canónica en https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/586.html. También puedes consultar la documentación de OWASP y NIST para guías relacionadas.

Debilidades relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-586

CWE-1076 Padre

Insufficient Adherence to Expected Conventions

This weakness occurs when software code, design, documentation, or other components fail to follow established industry or…

CWE-1045 Hermano

Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor

This occurs when a base class defines a virtual destructor, but a derived class inherits from it without declaring its own virtual…

CWE-1070 Hermano

Serializable Data Element Containing non-Serializable Item Elements

This weakness occurs when a class or data structure is marked as serializable, but it contains one or more member elements that cannot be…

CWE-1078 Hermano

Inappropriate Source Code Style or Formatting

This weakness occurs when source code violates established style guidelines for formatting, indentation, whitespace, or commenting, making…

CWE-1079 Hermano

Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method

This occurs when a base class, designed to be inherited from, does not declare its destructor as virtual. This oversight prevents proper…

CWE-1082 Hermano

Class Instance Self Destruction Control Element

This vulnerability occurs when an object's code contains logic that triggers its own deletion or destruction during runtime.

CWE-1087 Hermano

Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor

This occurs when a class defines a virtual method but does not also provide a virtual destructor.

CWE-1091 Hermano

Use of Object without Invoking Destructor Method

This weakness occurs when a program accesses an object but fails to properly call its destructor or finalizer method. This leaves the…

CWE-1097 Hermano

Persistent Storable Data Element without Associated Comparison Control Element

This weakness occurs when a persistent data object lacks the necessary methods to be properly compared, which can lead to inconsistent or…

¿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