Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

ABTV

11/29/2019
10:05 AM
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
Larry Loeb
50%
50%

The Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors

'Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer' tops this year's list.

The Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors (CWE Top 25) is a list of what has been judged to be the most widespread and critical weaknesses that can lead to serious vulnerabilities in software. These kinds of weaknesses are often easy to find and exploit. They can be dangerous because they can frequently allow threat actors to completely take over execution of software, steal data, or prevent the software from working.

MITRE is saying that this current list is data driven in how it has been approached; using Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) data and related CWE mappings that are found within the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Vulnerability Database (NVD), as well as the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) scores associated with each of the CVEs. A scoring formula was then applied by MITRE to determine the level of prevalence and danger each weakness presents.

At the time of the last list compilation eight years ago, the top spot of the list was taken by SQL injection techniques. The 2011 list was constructed by a different method; from surveys conducted of developers, top security analysts, researchers and vendors. It involved some subjectivity on the part of those surveyed.

But this year, it's "Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer" as top dog which shows the changes that have happened to the list. The current top spot is a class level of wide-ranging errors, not one bugaboo. The data-driven approach to generating the list gave rise to solidifying root causes of multiple vulnerabilities into one class-level description.

The 2019 CWE Top 25 leverages NVD data from the years 2017 and 2018, which consisted of approximately 25,000 CVEs. The scoring formula combines the frequency that a CWE is the root cause of a vulnerability with the projected severity of its exploitation. In both cases, the frequency and severity are normalized relative to the minimum and maximum values seen.

So, what kinds of problems will not show up in the list? Weaknesses that are rarely exploited will not receive a high score, regardless of the typical severity associated with any exploitation. Weaknesses with a low impact will not receive a high score, which makes sense. It makes sense that weaknesses that are both common and can cause harm should receive a high score.

The methodology does have limitations. This approach to the list only uses data that was publicly reported and captured in NVD, and there are numerous vulnerabilities exist that do not have CVE IDs. Vulnerabilities which are not included in NVD will be excluded from this approach. The authors of the list also admit that it indirectly prioritizes implementation flaws over design flaws, due to their prevalence within individual software packages.

— Larry Loeb has written for many of the last century's major "dead tree" computer magazines, having been, among other things, a consulting editor for BYTE magazine and senior editor for the launch of WebWeek.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/25/2020
Hacking Yourself: Marie Moe and Pacemaker Security
Gary McGraw Ph.D., Co-founder Berryville Institute of Machine Learning,  9/21/2020
Startup Aims to Map and Track All the IT and Security Things
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/22/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15208
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, when determining the common dimension size of two tensors, TFLite uses a `DCHECK` which is no-op outside of debug compilation modes. Since the function always returns the dimension of the first tensor, malicious attackers can ...
CVE-2020-15209
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, a crafted TFLite model can force a node to have as input a tensor backed by a `nullptr` buffer. This can be achieved by changing a buffer index in the flatbuffer serialization to convert a read-only tensor to a read-write one....
CVE-2020-15210
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In tensorflow-lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, if a TFLite saved model uses the same tensor as both input and output of an operator, then, depending on the operator, we can observe a segmentation fault or just memory corruption. We have patched the issue in d58c96946b and ...
CVE-2020-15211
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 1.15.4, 2.0.3, 2.1.2, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, saved models in the flatbuffer format use a double indexing scheme: a model has a set of subgraphs, each subgraph has a set of operators and each operator has a set of input/output tensors. The flatbuffer format uses indices f...
CVE-2020-15212
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-25
In TensorFlow Lite before versions 2.2.1 and 2.3.1, models using segment sum can trigger writes outside of bounds of heap allocated buffers by inserting negative elements in the segment ids tensor. Users having access to `segment_ids_data` can alter `output_index` and then write to outside of `outpu...