...
Returning references to internal object state (mutable or immutable) can render an application susceptible to information leaks and corruption of its objects' states, which consequently violates class invariants. Control flow can also be affected in some cases.
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
OBJ05-J | High | Probable | Medium | P12 | L1 |
Automated Detection
Sound automated detection is infeasible; heuristic checks could be useful.
| Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parasoft Jtest |
|
| CERT. |
| OBJ05.CPCL |
CERT. |
| OBJ05.MPT |
CERT. |
| OBJ05.SMO |
CERT.OBJ05.MUCOP | Enforce returning a defensive copy in 'clone()' methods Do not pass user-given mutable objects directly to certain types Do not store user-given mutable objects directly into variables Provide mutable classes with copy functionality | ||||||||
| SonarQube |
| S2384 | Mutable members should not be stored or returned directly Implemented for |
Arrays, |
Collections and |
DatesDates. |
Related Vulnerabilities
Pugh [Pugh 2009] cites a vulnerability discovered by the Findbugs static analysis tool in the early betas of JDK 1.7 in which the sun.security.x509.InvalidityDateExtension class returned a Date instance through a public accessor without creating defensive copies.
Related Guidelines
CWE-375, Returning a Mutable Object to an Untrusted Caller |
Bibliography
[API 2014] | Method clone() |
Item 39, "Make Defensive Copies When Needed" | |
Section 3.2, "Publication and Escape: Allowing Internal Mutable State to Escape" | |
Section 9.4, "Private Object State and Object Immutability" | |
| [Pugh 2009] |
...
...