CWE-460 Base Brouillon Medium likelihood

Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception

This vulnerability occurs when a program fails to properly restore its state or release resources after an exception is thrown, leaving the application in an inconsistent or unexpected condition.

Définition

What is CWE-460?

This vulnerability occurs when a program fails to properly restore its state or release resources after an exception is thrown, leaving the application in an inconsistent or unexpected condition.
In complex functions or loops, temporary resources like file handles, database connections, or memory allocations often need careful management. When an exception interrupts the normal execution flow, cleanup code that runs during a successful path might be skipped entirely. This leaves resources dangling or data in a partially modified state, which can cause crashes, data corruption, or security issues like information disclosure. Managing this at scale is difficult; an ASPM like Plexicus can help you track and remediate these flaws across your entire stack. While SAST tools can identify risky patterns, Plexicus uses AI to analyze execution paths and suggest specific fixes—such as implementing finally blocks or using try-with-resources constructs—saving hours of manual code review and preventing unstable application behavior.
Impact réel

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-460

Aucune référence CVE publique n'est liée à ce CWE dans le catalogue MITRE pour le moment.

Comment les attaquants l'exploitent

Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape

  1. 1

    Identifier un chemin de code qui traite des entrées non fiables sans validation.

  2. 2

    Élaborer une charge utile qui exploite le comportement non sécurisé — injection, traversal, débordement ou abus de logique.

  3. 3

    Délivrer la charge utile via une requête normale et observer la réaction de l'application.

  4. 4

    Itérer jusqu'à ce que la réponse divulgue des données, exécute le code de l'attaquant ou élève les privilèges.

Exemple de code vulnérable

Vulnerable Java

The following example demonstrates the weakness.

Vulnérable Java
public class foo {
  		public static final void main( String args[] ) {
  				boolean returnValue;
  				returnValue=doStuff();
  		}
  		public static final boolean doStuff( ) {
  				boolean threadLock;
  				boolean truthvalue=true;
  				try {
  						while(
```
//check some condition* 
  						) {
  						```
  								threadLock=true; //do some stuff to truthvalue
  								threadLock=false;
  						}
  				}
  				catch (Exception e){
  						System.err.println("You did something bad");
  						if (something) return truthvalue;
  				}
  				return truthvalue;
  		}
  }
Exemple de code sécurisé

Secure pseudo

Sécurisé 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.
Liste de contrôle de prévention

How to prevent CWE-460

  • Implementation If one breaks from a loop or function by throwing an exception, make sure that cleanup happens or that you should exit the program. Use throwing exceptions sparsely.
Signaux de détection

How to detect CWE-460

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-460

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.

Questions fréquentes

Frequently asked questions

Qu'est-ce que CWE-460 ?

This vulnerability occurs when a program fails to properly restore its state or release resources after an exception is thrown, leaving the application in an inconsistent or unexpected condition.

Quelle est la gravité de CWE-460 ?

MITRE évalue la probabilité d'exploitation comme Moyenne — l'exploitation est réaliste mais nécessite généralement des conditions spécifiques.

Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-460 ?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: C, C++, Java, C#.

Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-460 ?

If one breaks from a loop or function by throwing an exception, make sure that cleanup happens or that you should exit the program. Use throwing exceptions sparsely.

Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-460 ?

Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-460 à chaque commit. Lorsqu'une correspondance est trouvée, notre agent Codex Remedium ouvre une PR de correction avec le code corrigé, les tests et un résumé d'une ligne pour le relecteur.

Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-460 ?

MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/460.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.

Prêt à valider l'essentiel ?

Prêt à valider ce qui compte.

Plexicus est Proof-Driven AppSec : findings validés, compréhension contextuelle et remédiation relue — ancrée dans la preuve, scopée avec vous.

Qualification

Vérifiez si l'AI Swarm Pentest convient à votre environnement.

Partagez le contexte minimum. Nous vérifierons le périmètre et indiquerons la prochaine étape commerciale.

Avant d'envoyer — vérifiez que vous correspondez

0 / 280

Sans engagement. Si vous ne correspondez pas, nous vous le dirons.

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)
Tour privé Pour les investisseurs