CWE-674 Class Draft

Uncontrolled Recursion

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to limit how deeply a function can call itself. Without proper controls, this uncontrolled recursion can exhaust system resources like memory or…

Definition

What is CWE-674?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to limit how deeply a function can call itself. Without proper controls, this uncontrolled recursion can exhaust system resources like memory or stack space, leading to crashes or denial-of-service.
Uncontrolled recursion happens when a recursive function lacks a proper termination condition or depth limit. This allows it to run indefinitely or until it consumes all available stack memory, causing a stack overflow. Common triggers include processing deeply nested user input (like XML/JSON), complex graph traversals, or mathematical sequences without safety checks. Developers should always implement a maximum recursion depth or convert recursive logic to iterative loops for critical operations. Detecting these flaws manually in a large codebase is challenging, as recursion paths can be complex. While SAST tools can identify the risky pattern, Plexicus uses AI to not only flag the issue but also generate specific, safe code fixes—such as adding depth counters or suggesting iterative alternatives—saving significant manual review and remediation time.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-674

  • Deeply nested arrays trigger stack exhaustion.

  • Self-referencing pointers create infinite loop and resultant stack exhaustion.

  • Javascript application accidentally changes input in a way that prevents a recursive call from detecting an exit condition.

  • An attempt to recover a corrupted XML file infinite recursion protection counter was not always incremented missing the exit condition.

  • USB-audio driver's descriptor code parsing allows unlimited recursion leading to stack exhaustion.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

  1. 1

    Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.

  2. 2

    Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.

  3. 3

    Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.

  4. 4

    Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable C

In this example a mistake exists in the code where the exit condition contained in flg is never called. This results in the function calling itself over and over again until the stack is exhausted.

Vulnerable C
void do_something_recursive (int flg)
 {

```
   ... // Do some real work here, but the value of flg is unmodified
   if (flg) { do_something_recursive (flg); } // flg is never modified so it is always TRUE - this call will continue until the stack explodes
 }
 int flag = 1; // Set to TRUE
 do_something_recursive (flag);
Secure code example

Secure C

Note that the only difference between the Good and Bad examples is that the recursion flag will change value and cause the recursive call to return.

Secure C
void do_something_recursive (int flg)
 {

```
   ... // Do some real work here
   // Modify value of flg on done condition
   if (flg) { do_something_recursive (flg); } // returns when flg changes to 0
 }
 int flag = 1; // Set to TRUE
 do_something_recursive (flag);
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-674

  • Implementation Ensure an end condition will be reached under all logic conditions. The end condition may include testing against the depth of recursion and exiting with an error if the recursion goes too deep. The complexity of the end condition contributes to the effectiveness of this action.
  • Implementation Increase the stack size.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-674

Automated Static Analysis High

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.)

CWE-674

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-674?

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to limit how deeply a function can call itself. Without proper controls, this uncontrolled recursion can exhaust system resources like memory or stack space, leading to crashes or denial-of-service.

How serious is CWE-674?

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-674?

MITRE has not specified affected platforms for this CWE — it can apply across most application stacks.

How can I prevent CWE-674?

Ensure an end condition will be reached under all logic conditions. The end condition may include testing against the depth of recursion and exiting with an error if the recursion goes too deep. The complexity of the end condition contributes to the effectiveness of this action. Increase the stack size.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-674?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-674 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-674?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/674.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)