Weakness · High
CWE-479: Signal Handler Use of a Non-reentrant Function
What it is
The product defines a signal handler that calls a non-reentrant function.
- Severity (our rating)
- High
- Likelihood of exploit
- Low
- Introduced during
- Implementation
- Exploited in the wild
- No CVE in CISA's catalog
In more detail
Non-reentrant functions are functions that cannot safely be called, interrupted, and then recalled before the first call has finished without resulting in memory corruption. This can lead to an unexpected system state and unpredictable results with a variety of potential consequences depending on context, including denial of service and code execution. Many functions are not reentrant, but some of them can result in the corruption of memory if they are used in a signal handler. The function call syslog() is an example of this. In order to perform its functionality, it allocates a small amount of memory as "scratch space." If syslog() is suspended by a signal call and the signal handler calls syslog(), the memory used by both of these functions enters an undefined, and possibly, exploitable state. Implementations of malloc() and free() manage metadata in global structures in order to track which memory is allocated versus which memory is available, but they are non-reentrant. Simultaneous calls to these functions can cause corruption of the metadata.
What an attacker can do
- Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands (Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability)
- Modify Memory (Integrity)
- Modify Application Data (Integrity)
How to prevent it
Requirements
- Require languages or libraries that provide reentrant functionality, or otherwise make it easier to avoid this weakness.
Architecture and Design
- Design signal handlers to only set flags rather than perform complex functionality.
Implementation
- Ensure that non-reentrant functions are not found in signal handlers.
- Use sanity checks to reduce the timing window for exploitation of race conditions. This is only a partial solution, since many attacks might fail, but other attacks still might work within the narrower window, even accidentally.
How to find it
- Automated Static Analysis. Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
H2 Security
Found it in your code?
We review where it appears, fix it with your team, and check it was not already used against you.
Talk to our teamT Academy
Stop writing it in the first place
Learn to build software and systems without weaknesses like this one, with practice on real hosts in your browser, every objective checked on the machine.
Start freeSource: MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration, CWE version 4.19.1. CWE is a trademark of The MITRE Corporation.