CWE-372 Base Rascunho

Incomplete Internal State Distinction

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to accurately track its own operational state. The system incorrectly assumes it's in one mode or condition when it's actually in another, leading…

Definição

What is CWE-372?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to accurately track its own operational state. The system incorrectly assumes it's in one mode or condition when it's actually in another, leading to security-critical actions being performed with the wrong assumptions.
Think of this flaw as a developer forgetting to lock a door because they mistakenly believe it's already locked. The application maintains internal flags, variables, or conditions that represent its state—like "authenticated," "processing transaction," or "in admin mode." When the code doesn't properly validate transitions between these states or allows state variables to become inconsistent, the application can perform dangerous operations based on an outdated or incorrect self-perception. For example, it might grant privileged access because a flag wasn't cleared after a logout, or process a user's data as if it were still in a validated session. To prevent this, developers must treat state management as a critical security function. Implement explicit state machines with clear transitions, invalidate state variables immediately when conditions change, and never trust a single flag in isolation. Always perform a fresh, consolidated check of all relevant conditions before executing security-sensitive operations, ensuring the application's internal view of itself always matches reality.
Impacto no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-372

Ainda não há referências CVE públicas associadas a este CWE no catálogo da MITRE.

Como os atacantes a exploram

Trajeto do atacante passo a passo

  1. 1

    Identificar um caminho de código que trata input não confiável sem validação.

  2. 2

    Criar um payload que explora o comportamento inseguro — injeção, traversal, overflow ou abuso de lógica.

  3. 3

    Entregar o payload através de um pedido normal e observar a reação da aplicação.

  4. 4

    Iterar até que a resposta exponha dados, execute código do atacante ou escale privilégios.

Exemplo de código vulnerável

Vulnerable pseudo

A MITRE não publicou um exemplo de código para este CWE. O padrão abaixo é ilustrativo — consulte os Recursos para referências canónicas.

Vulnerável pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Exemplo 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 verificação de prevenção

How to prevent CWE-372

  • 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.
Sinais de deteção

How to detect CWE-372

SAST High

Executar análise estática (SAST) na base de código à procura do padrão inseguro no fluxo de dados.

DAST Moderate

Executar testes dinâmicos de segurança de aplicações (DAST) contra o endpoint em execução.

Runtime Moderate

Monitorizar os registos em tempo de execução para traços de exceção invulgares, input malformado ou tentativas de contornar a autorização.

Code review Moderate

Revisão de código: sinalizar qualquer novo código que trate input desta superfície sem usar os ajudantes validados do framework.

CWE-372

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.

Perguntas frequentes

Frequently asked questions

O que é o CWE-372?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to accurately track its own operational state. The system incorrectly assumes it's in one mode or condition when it's actually in another, leading to security-critical actions being performed with the wrong assumptions.

Qual a gravidade do CWE-372?

A MITRE não publicou uma classificação de probabilidade de exploração para esta fraqueza. Trate-a como impacto médio até o seu modelo de ameaças provar o contrário.

Que linguagens ou plataformas são afetadas pelo CWE-372?

A MITRE não especificou as plataformas afetadas por este CWE — pode aplicar-se à maioria das stacks de aplicações.

Como posso prevenir o CWE-372?

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.

Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-372?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-372 em cada commit. Quando é encontrada uma correspondência, o nosso agente Codex Remedium abre um PR de correção com o código corrigido, testes e um resumo de uma linha para o revisor.

Onde posso saber mais sobre o CWE-372?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/372.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

Fraquezas relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-372

CWE-664 Pai

Improper Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to properly manage a resource throughout its entire lifecycle—from creation and active use…

CWE-118 Irmão

Incorrect Access of Indexable Resource ('Range Error')

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to properly check the boundaries of an indexed resource, like an array, buffer, or file,…

CWE-1229 Irmão

Creation of Emergent Resource

This vulnerability occurs when a system's normal operations unintentionally create new, exploitable resources that attackers can use to…

CWE-1250 Irmão

Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State

This vulnerability occurs when a system with multiple independent components (like distributed services or separate hardware units) each…

CWE-1329 Irmão

Reliance on Component That is Not Updateable

This vulnerability occurs when a product depends on a component that cannot be updated or patched to fix security flaws or critical bugs.

CWE-221 Irmão

Information Loss or Omission

This weakness occurs when an application fails to log critical security events or records them inaccurately, which can misguide security…

CWE-400 Irmão

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly manage a finite resource, allowing an attacker to exhaust it and cause a…

CWE-404 Irmão

Improper Resource Shutdown or Release

This vulnerability occurs when a program fails to properly close or release a system resource—like a file handle, database connection, or…

CWE-410 Irmão

Insufficient Resource Pool

This vulnerability occurs when a system's resource pool is too small to handle maximum usage. Attackers can exploit this by making a high…

Pronto para validar o que importa?

Pronto para validar o que importa.

O Plexicus é Proof-Driven AppSec: achados validados, compreensão contextual e remediação revisada — ancorada em evidência, escopada com você.

Qualificação

Verifique se o AI Swarm Pentest se adequa ao seu ambiente.

Partilhe o contexto mínimo. Vamos rever o escopo e indicar o próximo passo comercial.

Antes de enviar — verifique se se encaixa

0 / 280

Sem compromisso. Se não se encaixa, dizemos.

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 investidores