CWE-386 Base Rascunho

Symbolic Name not Mapping to Correct Object

This vulnerability occurs when a program uses a fixed symbolic name (like a constant or identifier) to refer to an object, but that name can later point to a different, unintended object during…

Definição

What is CWE-386?

This vulnerability occurs when a program uses a fixed symbolic name (like a constant or identifier) to refer to an object, but that name can later point to a different, unintended object during execution.
At its core, this flaw is a mismatch between a developer's assumption and the runtime environment's behavior. Developers often use symbolic names—think of environment variables, registry keys, fixed file paths, or named constants—believing they reliably point to one specific resource or piece of data. However, if the system or application state changes, that same symbolic name can resolve to a completely different object. This breaks the program's logic and can lead to dangerous scenarios where the code processes untrusted data thinking it's something safe. The risk emerges because the symbolic reference is not securely bound to its intended target. For example, an application might use a constant like `CONFIG_FILE` pointing to `/etc/app/config.json`. If an attacker can create a symlink with that same name or modify environment variables, the program could be tricked into loading a malicious file. To prevent this, developers should avoid relying on unvalidated symbolic mappings. Instead, use direct object references, verify the object's integrity before use, or implement proper locking mechanisms to ensure the binding between name and object cannot be hijacked.
Impacto no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-386

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-386

  • 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-386

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-386

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-386?

This vulnerability occurs when a program uses a fixed symbolic name (like a constant or identifier) to refer to an object, but that name can later point to a different, unintended object during execution.

Qual a gravidade do CWE-386?

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-386?

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

Como posso prevenir o CWE-386?

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-386?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-386 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-386?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/386.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

Fraquezas relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-386

CWE-706 Pai

Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference

This vulnerability occurs when software uses a name, path, or reference to access a resource, but that identifier points to something…

CWE-178 Irmão

Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to consistently handle uppercase and lowercase letters when checking or accessing resources,…

CWE-22 Irmão

Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')

This vulnerability occurs when an application builds a file path using user input but fails to properly validate it, allowing an attacker…

CWE-41 Irmão

Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly handle different text representations that refer to the same file or…

CWE-59 Irmão

Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')

This vulnerability occurs when an application uses a filename to access a file but fails to properly check if that name points to a…

CWE-66 Irmão

Improper Handling of File Names that Identify Virtual Resources

This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly processes a filename that points to a 'virtual' resource—like a device, pipe, or…

CWE-827 Irmão

Improper Control of Document Type Definition

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly restrict which Document Type Definitions (DTDs) can be referenced during…

CWE-98 Irmão

Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion')

This vulnerability occurs when a PHP application uses unvalidated or insufficiently restricted user input directly within file inclusion…

CWE-367 Par

Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition

This vulnerability occurs when a program verifies a resource's state (like a file's permissions or existence) but then uses it after that…

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