CWE-1342 Base Incomplete

Information Exposure through Microarchitectural State after Transient Execution

This vulnerability occurs when a CPU fails to completely erase temporary data traces left behind by speculative execution or error recovery processes. These lingering microarchitectural hints can be…

Definition

What is CWE-1342?

This vulnerability occurs when a CPU fails to completely erase temporary data traces left behind by speculative execution or error recovery processes. These lingering microarchitectural hints can be analyzed through side-channels to leak sensitive information.
Modern CPUs use techniques like speculative execution and microcode assists to boost performance. When these operations are canceled or encounter errors, the processor should fully clean up. However, if remnants of these transient computations persist in internal buffers (like load/store queues), they create a measurable change in the chip's hidden state. An attacker can then use timing or other side-channel attacks to infer protected data, such as secrets from other processes or virtual machines. Successful exploitation typically requires three conditions: first, vulnerable code must speculatively access sensitive information, leaving microarchitectural traces. Second, the attacker must be able to trigger the specific CPU exceptions or mis-speculations that create these traces. Finally, the attacker needs a method to observe the state change, often by analyzing cache timing or other hardware resource contention, to slowly reconstruct the leaked data.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-1342

  • Load value injection in some processors utilizing speculative execution may allow an authenticated user to enable information disclosure via a side-channel with local access.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

  1. 1

    Faulting loads in a victim domain may trigger incorrect transient forwarding, which leaves secret-dependent traces in the microarchitectural state. Consider this example from [REF-1203].

  2. 2

    Consider the code gadget:

  3. 3

    A processor with this weakness will store the value of untrusted_arg (which may be provided by an attacker) to the stack, which is trusted memory. Additionally, this store operation will save this value in some microarchitectural buffer, e.g. the store queue. In this code gadget, trusted_ptr is dereferenced while the attacker forces a page fault. The faulting load causes the processor to mis-speculate by forwarding untrusted_arg as the (speculative) load result. The processor then uses untrusted_arg for the pointer dereference. After the fault has been handled and the load has been re-issued with the correct argument, secret-dependent information stored at the address of trusted_ptr remains in microarchitectural state and can be extracted by an attacker using a code gadget.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable C

Consider the code gadget:

Vulnerable C
void call_victim(size_t untrusted_arg) {
  	 *arg_copy = untrusted_arg;
  	 array[**trusted_ptr * 4096];
   }
Secure code example

Secure pseudo

Secure pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Prevention checklist

How to prevent CWE-1342

  • Architecture and Design / Requirements Hardware ensures that no illegal data flows from faulting micro-ops exists at the microarchitectural level.
  • Build and Compilation Include instructions that explicitly remove traces of unneeded computations from software interactions with microarchitectural elements e.g. lfence, sfence, mfence, clflush.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-1342

SAST High

Run static analysis (SAST) on the codebase looking for the unsafe pattern in the data flow.

DAST Moderate

Run dynamic application security testing against the live endpoint.

Runtime Moderate

Watch runtime logs for unusual exception traces, malformed input, or authorization bypass attempts.

Code review Moderate

Code review: flag any new code that handles input from this surface without using the validated framework helpers.

CWE-1342

Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.

Plexicus turns CWE catalogs into evidence: every CWE-pattern is matched against your real code graph, reach is proven on a sandbox clone, and verified findings ship as reviewed PRs.

Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-1342?

This vulnerability occurs when a CPU fails to completely erase temporary data traces left behind by speculative execution or error recovery processes. These lingering microarchitectural hints can be analyzed through side-channels to leak sensitive information.

How serious is CWE-1342?

MITRE has not published a likelihood-of-exploit rating for this weakness. Treat it as medium-impact until your threat model proves otherwise.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-1342?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Not OS-Specific, Workstation, x86, ARM, Other, Not Technology-Specific, System on Chip.

How can I prevent CWE-1342?

Hardware ensures that no illegal data flows from faulting micro-ops exists at the microarchitectural level. Include instructions that explicitly remove traces of unneeded computations from software interactions with microarchitectural elements e.g. lfence, sfence, mfence, clflush.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-1342?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-1342 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.

Where can I learn more about CWE-1342?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1342.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Ready to validate what matters?

Ready to validate what matters?

Plexicus is Proof-Driven AppSec: validated findings, contextual understanding, and reviewed remediation — anchored in evidence, scoped with you.

Qualification

Check whether AI Swarm Pentest fits your environment.

Share the minimum context. We will review the scope and tell you the next commercial step.

Before submitting — verify you fit

Teams with fewer than 50 developers: start a 14-day Trial instead of booking a demo. Start a 14-day Trial →

0 / 280

No commitment. If you don't fit, we'll tell you.

SAMPLE HANDOVER · ILLUSTRATIVE

Sample evidence handover

A trimmed view of what your team receives at the end of an AI Swarm Pentest engagement. Real engagements include full technical evidence, executive narrative, and a remediation plan.

VALIDATED FINDING Evidence attached

Server-Side Request Forgery in webhooks/receiver

demo-project/sample-app · src/webhooks/receiver.py:42

SeverityHigh CVSS 3.18.6 Priority79 Confirmedvia replay

Untrusted caller-supplied URLs reach an internal egress without an allowlist. Replayed in a sandbox against a fresh authorised target — the same control was validated to fail twice.

REVIEWER-READY REMEDIATION Merge-ready PR

Validate the target URL against an allowlist of permitted hostnames. Reject private/internal IP ranges. Enforce HTTPS only.

plexicus/remediation/webhooks-ssrf 3 changed · 0 new files
42resp = requests.get(target_url)
42+if not is_allowed_host(target_url):
43+  raise WebhookRejected(target_url)
44+resp = requests.get(target_url, timeout=5)
Every engagement hands over:
  • Executive briefing
  • Validated findings list
  • Merge-ready PRs
  • Compliance mapping (NIS2 · DORA · CRA)