CWE-586 Base Rascunho

Explicit Call to Finalize()

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

Definição

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 no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-586

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 Java

The following code fragment calls finalize() explicitly:

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

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

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.

Perguntas frequentes

Frequently asked questions

O que é o CWE-586?

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

Qual a gravidade do CWE-586?

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-586?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Java.

Como posso prevenir o CWE-586?

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

Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-586?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-586 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-586?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/586.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

Fraquezas relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-586

CWE-1076 Pai

Insufficient Adherence to Expected Conventions

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

CWE-1045 Irmão

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 Irmão

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 Irmão

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 Irmão

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 Irmão

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 Irmão

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 Irmão

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 Irmão

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…

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