Improper Handling of File Names that Identify Virtual Resources

Description

This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly processes a filename that points to a 'virtual' resource—like a device, pipe, or internal system object—instead of a regular file. The application mistakenly performs file operations (like read, write, or copy) on this non-file resource, which can lead to crashes, data exposure, or unexpected system behavior.

Extended Description

Virtual resources, such as `/dev/random` on Linux or `\\.\COM1` on Windows, use file-like naming conventions but represent system interfaces, devices, or in-memory objects. When an application treats these paths as ordinary files—for example, by blindly passing user-supplied input to file APIs—it can trigger actions the system never intended for file handling, like reading from a hardware port or writing to a system pipe. Developers can prevent this by validating and sanitizing all file path inputs, explicitly checking for and blocking known virtual resource patterns or namespace prefixes (like `\\.\` or `/proc/`). Using safe API functions that restrict operations to regular filesystem objects, rather than low-level system calls, also adds a critical layer of defense against this confusion.

Common Consequences 1

Scope: Other

Impact: Other

Detection Methods 7

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or BytecodeSOAR Partial

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or BytecodeSOAR Partial

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results InterpretationSOAR Partial

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results InterpretationSOAR Partial

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer

Manual Static Analysis - Source CodeHigh

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Automated Static Analysis - Source CodeSOAR Partial

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Architecture or Design ReviewHigh

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

Observed Examples 3

CVE-1999-0278In IIS, remote attackers can obtain source code for ASP files by appending "::$DATA" to the URL.

CVE-2004-1084Server allows remote attackers to read files and resource fork content via HTTP requests to certain special file names related to multiple data streams in HFS+.

CVE-2002-0106Server allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a series of requests to .JSP files that contain an MS-DOS device name.

References 1

State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation

Gregory Larsen, E. Kenneth Hong Fong, David A. Wheeler, and Rama S. Moorthy

07-2014

https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx(2025-09-05)

ID: REF-1479