Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Comment: Edited by sciSpider v2.4 (sch jbop) (X_X)@==(Q_Q)@

Software vulnerabilities can result when a programmer fails to consider all possible data states.

...

Noncompliant Code Example

This example fails to test for conditions where a is neither b nor c. This may be the correct behavior in this case, but failure to account for all the values of a may result in logic errors if a unexpectedly assumes a different value.

Code Block
bgColor#FFCCCC
if (a == b) {
  /* ... */
}
else if (a == c) {
  /* ... */
}

Compliant Solution

This compliant solution explicitly checks for the unexpected condition and handles it appropriately.

Code Block
bgColor#ccccff
if (a == b) {
  /* ... */
}
else if (a == c) {
  /* ... */
}
else {
  /* handle error condition */
}

...

Noncompliant Code Example

This non-compliant noncompliant code example fails to consider all possible cases. This may be the correct behavior in this case, but failure to account for all the values of widget_type may result in logic errors if widget_type unexpectedly assumes a different value or if its valid range is expanded during code maintenance and the programmer overlooks the need to add a case to the switch.

...

Code Block
bgColor#FFCCCC
enum WidgetEnum { WE_W, WE_X, WE_Y, WE_Z } widget_type;

widget_type = 45;

switch (widget_type) {
  case WE_X:
    /* ... */
    break;
  case WE_Y:
    /* ... */
    break;
  case WE_Z:
    /* ... */
    break;
}

Implementation Details

Microsoft Visual C++ .NET with /W4 does not warn when assigning an integer value to an enum type, or when the switch statement does not contain all possible values of the enumeration.

Compliant Solution

This compliant solution explicitly checks for the unexpected condition by adding a default clause to the switch statement.

...

Adding a default case to a switch statement, even when all possible switch labels are specified, is an allowable exception (MSC07-EX1) to MSC07-AC. Detect and remove dead code, as the unreachable code is added as a precautionary measure.

Historical Discussion

This practice has been a subject of debate for some time, but a clear direction has emerged.

...

Existing implementations are in transition, with some not yet analyzing switch statements with default labels. Developers must take extra care to check their own switch statements until the new practice becomes universal.

Risk Assessment

Failing to take into account all possibilities within a logic statement can lead to a corrupted running state, potentially resulting in unintentional information disclosure or abnormal termination.

Recommendation

Severity

Likelihood

Remediation Cost

Priority

Level

MSC01-A C

medium

probable

medium

P8

L2

Automated Detection

The LDRA tool suite V 7.6.0 is able to can detect violations of this recommendation.

...

Code Block
bgColor#ccccff
  if (x > 0) {
	  /* ... */
  } else if (x < 0) {
    /* ... */
  } else if (x == 0) {
    /* ... */
  }

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.

References

Wiki Markup
\[[Hatton 95|AA. C References#Hatton 95]\] Section 2.7.2, "Errors of omission and addition"
\[[ISO/IEC PDTR 24772|AA. C References#ISO/IEC PDTR 24772]\] "CLL Switch statements and static analysis"
\[[Viega 05|AA. C References#Viega 05]\] Section 5.2.17, "Failure to account for default case in switch"

...

      13. Miscellaneous (MSC)       MSC02-AC. Avoid errors of omission