CWE-690 Composto Rascunho

Unchecked Return Value to NULL Pointer Dereference

This vulnerability occurs when a program calls a function that can return a NULL pointer to signal failure, but the code does not check for this error condition before using the returned value,…

Definição

What is CWE-690?

This vulnerability occurs when a program calls a function that can return a NULL pointer to signal failure, but the code does not check for this error condition before using the returned value, leading to a crash or unexpected behavior from dereferencing the NULL pointer.
Many functions in C and similar languages use a NULL pointer return value to indicate that an operation failed, such as when memory allocation fails or a required resource isn't found. If a developer assumes the call was always successful and uses the return value directly—for example, by trying to read or write to that memory location—the program will attempt to dereference NULL, typically causing a segmentation fault and a crash. This is a specific and common case of a broader class of unchecked return value errors. While not all functions signal errors with NULL (some use special integers or status codes), the pattern of failing to validate a function's output before proceeding is a frequent source of instability. Properly handling these potential NULL returns by adding checks is a fundamental practice for writing robust and secure software that can gracefully manage unexpected states.
Impacto no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-690

  • Large Content-Length value leads to NULL pointer dereference when malloc fails.

  • Large message length field leads to NULL pointer dereference when malloc fails.

  • Parsing routine encounters NULL dereference when input is missing a colon separator.

  • URI parsing API sets argument to NULL when a parsing failure occurs, such as when the Referer header is missing a hostname, leading to NULL dereference.

  • chain: unchecked return value can lead to NULL dereference

Como os atacantes a exploram

Trajeto do atacante passo a passo

  1. 1

    The code below makes a call to the getUserName() function but doesn't check the return value before dereferencing (which may cause a NullPointerException).

  2. 2

    This example takes an IP address from a user, verifies that it is well formed and then looks up the hostname and copies it into a buffer.

  3. 3

    If an attacker provides an address that appears to be well-formed, but the address does not resolve to a hostname, then the call to gethostbyaddr() will return NULL. Since the code does not check the return value from gethostbyaddr (CWE-252), a NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476) would then occur in the call to strcpy().

  4. 4

    Note that this code is also vulnerable to a buffer overflow (CWE-119).

Exemplo de código vulnerável

Vulnerable Java

The code below makes a call to the getUserName() function but doesn't check the return value before dereferencing (which may cause a NullPointerException).

Vulnerável Java
String username = getUserName();
  if (username.equals(ADMIN_USER)) {
  	...
  }
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-690

  • 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-690

Black Box

This typically occurs in rarely-triggered error conditions, reducing the chances of detection during black box testing.

White Box

Code analysis can require knowledge of API behaviors for library functions that might return NULL, reducing the chances of detection when unknown libraries are used.

CWE-690

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-690?

This vulnerability occurs when a program calls a function that can return a NULL pointer to signal failure, but the code does not check for this error condition before using the returned value, leading to a crash or unexpected behavior from dereferencing the NULL pointer.

Qual a gravidade do CWE-690?

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-690?

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

Como posso prevenir o CWE-690?

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-690?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-690 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-690?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/690.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

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