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 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.
if (a == b) { /* ... */ } else if (a == c) { /* ... */ }
Compliant Solution (If Chain)
This compliant solution explicitly checks for the unexpected condition and handles it appropriately.
if (a == b) { /* ... */ } else if (a == c) { /* ... */ } else { /* handle error condition */ }
Noncompliant Code Example (Switch)
The following 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 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.
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)); }
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 (Switch)
The following compliant solution takes care to provide the default
label to handle all valid values of type Color
:
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"; /* necessary */ } }
Note that adding a default case to a switch
statement, even when all possible switch labels are specified, is an exception (MSC07-EX1) to MSC07-C. Detect and remove dead code.
An alternative compliant solution to the noncompliant code example is to provide a return
statement after the switch
statement. Note, however, that this solution may not be appropriate in all situations.
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"; /* necessary */ }
Historical Discussion
This practice has been a subject of debate for some time, but a clear direction has emerged.
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 practice 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.
Noncompliant Code Example (Zune 30)
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 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.
The flaw in the code occurs when days
has the value 366 because the loop never terminates. This bug manifested itself on the 366th day of 2008, which was the first leap year in which this code was active.
#define ORIGINYEAR 1980 UINT32 days = /* number 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)
The following proposed rewrite is provided by http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/01/lesson-on-infinite-loops. The loop is guaranteed to exit, because days
decreases for each iteration of the loop, unless the while
condition fails, and the loop terminates.
#define ORIGINYEAR 1980 UINT32 days = /* input 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 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 |
---|---|---|---|
9.7.1 | 12 S | Fully implemented. | |
GCC | 4.3.5 | Can detect some violations of this recommendation when the | |
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 if (x > 0) { /* ... */ } else if (x < 0) { /* ... */ } else if (x == 0) { /* ... */ }
| ||
Klocwork | 2024.3 | LA_UNUSED | |
PRQA QA-C | Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found. | 0597 | Fully implemented |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
Related Guidelines
CERT C++ Secure Coding Standard: MSC01-CPP. Strive for logical completeness
ISO/IEC TS 17961 (Draft) Use of an implied default in a switch statement [swtchdflt]
ISO/IEC TR 24772 "CLL Switch statements and static analysis"
Sources
[Hatton 1995] Section 2.7.2, "Errors of omission and addition"
[Viega 2005] Section 5.2.17, "Failure to account for default case in switch"
[http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/01/lesson-on-infinite-loops] for analysis on the Zune 30 bug