Software vulnerabilities can result when a programmer fails to consider all possible data states.
Noncompliant Code Example (
...
if
Chain)
This noncompliant code example fails to test for conditions where a
is neither b
nor c
. This behavior may be the correct behavior in this case, but failure to account for all the values of a
can result in logic errors if a
unexpectedly assumes a different value.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
if (a == b) {
/* ... */
}
else if (a == c) {
/* ... */
}
|
Compliant Solution (
...
if
Chain)
This compliant solution explicitly checks for the unexpected condition and handles it appropriately.:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
if (a == b) { /* ... */ } else if (a == c) { /* ... */ } else { /* handleHandle error condition */ } |
Noncompliant Code Example (
...
switch
)
The following This noncompliant code example fails to consider all possible cases. Failure to account for all valid values of type Color
will result in a logic error. Since Because valid values of an enumerated type include all those of its underlying integer type, unless enumeration constants have been provided for all those values, the default
label is appropriate and necessary.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
typedef enum { Red, Green, Blue } Color;
const char* f(Color c) {
switch (c) {
case Red: return "Red";
case Green: return "Green";
case Blue: return "Blue";
}
}
void g() {
Color unknown = (Color)123;
puts(f(unknown));
}
|
...
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 (
...
switch
)
The This compliant solution below takes care to provide the default
label to handle all valid values of type Color
:
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
typedef enum { Red, Green, Blue } Color; const char* f(Color c) { switch (c) { case Red: return "Red"; case Green: return "Green"; case Blue: return "Blue"; default: return "Unknown color"; /* necessaryNecessary */ } } |
Note that adding a default case to a switch
statement, even when all possible switch
labels are specified, is exception an exception (MSC07-C-EX1) to recommendation MSC07-C. Detect and remove dead code.
An alternative compliant solution to the noncompliant code example above is to provide a return
statement after the switch
statement. Note, however, that this solution may not be appropriate in all situations.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
typedef enum { Red, Green, Blue } Color; const char* f(Color c) { switch (c) { case Red: return "Red"; case Green: return "Green"; case Blue: return "Blue"; } return "Unknown color"; /* necessaryNecessary */ } |
Historical Discussion
...
Originally, the consensus among those writing best practices was simply that each switch
statement should have a default
label. Eventually, emerging compilers and static analysis tools could verify that a switch
on an enum
type contained a case
label for each enumeration value, but only if no default
label existed. This led to a shift toward purposely leaving out the default
label to allow static analysis. However, the resulting code was then vulnerable to enum
variables being assigned int
values outside the set of enum
values.
These two practices have now been merged. A switch
on an enum
type should now contain a case
label for each enum
value , but should also contain a default
label for safety. This is not more difficult to analyze staticallypractice does not add difficulty to static analysis.
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.
...
This noncompliant code example shows incomplete logic when converting dates. The code appeared in the Zune 30 media player, causing many players to lock up on December 30, 2008, at midnight PST. This noncompliant code example comes from the ConvertDays
function in the real-time clock (RTC) routines for the MC13783 PMIC RTC. This noncompliant code sample It takes the number of days since January 1, 1980, and computes the correct year and number of days since January 1 of the correct year.
...
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#define ORIGINYEAR 1980 UINT32 days = /* numberNumber of days since January 1, 1980 */ int year = ORIGINYEAR; /* ... */ while (days > 365) { if (IsLeapYear(year)) { if (days > 366) { days -= 366; year += 1; } } else { days -= 365; year += 1; } } |
Compliant Solution (Zune 30)
This The following proposed rewrite is provided by at http://wwwwinjade.aeroxp.orgnet/2009/01/lesson-on-infinite-loops. The loop is guaranteed to exit, as because days
decreases for each iteration of the loop, unless the while
condition fails , and the loop terminates.
Code Block | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
#define ORIGINYEAR 1980 UINT32 days = /* inputInput parameter */ int year = ORIGINYEAR; /* ... */ int daysThisYear = (IsLeapYear(year) ? 366 : 365); while (days > daysThisYear) { days -= daysThisYear; year += 1; daysThisYear = (IsLeapYear(year) ? 366 : 365); } |
This compliant solution is for illustrative purposes and is not necessarily the solution implemented by Microsoft.
Risk Assessment
Failing to take into account all to account for 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-C |
Medium |
Probable |
Medium | P8 | L2 |
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description |
---|
Astrée |
|
|
|
Section |
---|
12 S |
Section |
---|
Fully Implemented |
Section |
---|
GCC |
Section |
---|
can detect some violations of this recommendation when the |
missing-else switch-default | Partially checked |
Compass/ROSE |
Can detect some violations of this recommendation. In particular, it flags switch statements that do not have a default clause. ROSE should |
detect "fake switches |
" as well (that is, a chain of |
|
clause, or they should mathematically cover every possibility. For instance, consider the following: |
if (x > 0) {
/* ... */
} else if (x < 0) {
/* ... */
} else if (x == 0) {
/* ... */
}
|
GCC |
| Can detect some violations of this recommendation when the | |||||||
Helix QAC |
| C2000, C2002, C2004 | |||||||
Klocwork |
|
|
|
CWARN.EMPTY.LABEL | |||||||||
LDRA tool suite |
| 48 S, 59 S | Fully implemented | ||||||
Parasoft C/C++test |
| CERT_C-MSC01-a | All 'if...else-if' constructs shall be terminated with an 'else' clause The final clause of a switch statement shall be the default clause | ||||||
PC-lint Plus |
| 474, 744, 787, 9013 | Partially supported | ||||||
Polyspace Bug Finder |
| Checks for missing case for switch condition (rule partially covered) | |||||||
PVS-Studio |
| V517, V533, V534, V535, V556, V577, V590, V612, V695, V696, V719, V722, V747, V785, V786 | |||||||
RuleChecker |
| missing-else switch-default | Partially checked | ||||||
SonarQube C/C++ Plugin |
|
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
...
...
VOID MSC01-CPP. Strive for logical completeness | |
CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java | MSC57-J. Strive for logical completeness |
ISO/IEC TS 17961 | Use of an implied default in a switch statement [swtchdflt] |
ISO/IEC TR 24772 |
...
Switch |
...
Statements and Static Analysis [CLL] |
Bibliography
...
...
...
] | Section 2.7.2, |
...
"Errors |
...
of |
...
Omission and Addition" | |
[Viega 2005] | Section 5.2.17, |
...
"Failure |
...
to Account for Default Case in Switch" | |
[Zadegan 2009] | "A Lesson on Infinite Loops" |
...
account for default case in switch" \[[http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/01/lesson-on-infinite-loops]\] for analysis on the Zune 30 bug 49. Miscellaneous (MSC) MSC02-C. Avoid errors of omission