Integer values used in any of the the following ways must be guaranteed correct:
- as an array index
- in any pointer arithmetic
- as a length or size of an object
- as the bound of an array (for example, a loop counter)
- in security critical code
Most integer operations can result in overflow if the resulting value cannot be represented by the underlying representation of the integer. The following table indicates which operators can result in overflow:
Operator |
Overflow |
|
Operator |
Overflow |
|
Operator |
Overflow |
|
Operator |
Overflow |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
yes |
|
yes |
|
yes |
|
< |
no |
|||
yes |
|
yes |
|
>> |
yes |
|
> |
no |
||
yes |
|
yes |
|
& |
no |
|
>= |
no |
||
yes |
|
yes |
|
| |
no |
|
<= |
no |
||
yes |
|
yes |
|
^ |
no |
|
== |
no |
||
++ |
yes |
|
>>= |
yes |
|
~ |
no |
|
!= |
no |
-- |
yes |
|
&= |
no |
|
! |
no |
|
&& |
no |
= |
no |
|
|= |
no |
|
un + |
no |
|
|| |
no |
yes |
|
^= |
no |
|
yes |
|
?: |
no |
The following sections examine specific operations that are susceptible to integer overflow. The specific tests that are required to guarantee that the operation does not result in an integer overflow depend on the signedness of the integer types. When operating on small types (smaller than int), integer conversion rules apply. The usual arithmetic conversions may also be applied to (implicitly) convert operands to equivalent types before arithmetic operations are performed. Make sure you understand implicit conversion rules before trying to implement secure arithmetic operations (see [[INT02-A. Understand integer conversion rules]]).
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Unable to render {include} The included page could not be found.
Exceptions
INT32-EX1. Unsigned integers can exhibit modulo behavior only when this behavior is necessary for the proper execution of the program. It is recommended that the variable declaration is clearly commented as supporting modulo behavior and that each operation on that integer is also clearly commented as supporting modulo behavior.
Risk Assessment
Integer overflow can lead to buffer overflows and the execution of arbitrary code by an attacker.
Rule |
Severity |
Likelihood |
Remediation Cost |
Priority |
Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INT32-C |
3 (high) |
3 (likely) |
1 (high) |
P9 |
L2 |
Related Vulnerabilities
Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this rule on the CERT website.
A Linux kernel vmsplice exploit, described at http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/index.php/2008/02/13/analyzing-the-linux-kernel-vmsplice-exploit/
documents a vulerability and exploit arising directly out of integer
overflow.
References
[[Dowd 06]] Chapter 6, "C Language Issues" (Arithmetic Boundary Conditions, pp. 211-223)
[[ISO/IEC 9899-1999]] Section 6.5, "Expressions," and Section 7.10, "Sizes of integer types <limits.h>"
[[Seacord 05]] Chapter 5, "Integers"
[[Viega 05]] Section 5.2.7, "Integer overflow"
[[VU#551436]]
[[Warren 02]] Chapter 2, "Basics"
04. Integers (INT) INT33-C. Ensure that division and modulo operations do not result in divide-by-zero errors