CWE-480 Base Borrador Low likelihood

Use of Incorrect Operator

This vulnerability occurs when a developer mistakenly uses the wrong operator in their code, leading to unintended and potentially insecure logic.

Definición

What is CWE-480?

This vulnerability occurs when a developer mistakenly uses the wrong operator in their code, leading to unintended and potentially insecure logic.
This flaw is almost always a simple typographical error, like using a single equals sign (=) for comparison instead of a double (== or ===), or confusing logical AND (&&) with OR (||). These small mistakes can drastically change how a program behaves, bypassing critical security checks, granting unintended access, or corrupting data. To prevent this, developers should adopt defensive coding practices like using linters and static analysis tools that can catch these errors automatically. Code reviews are also essential for spotting incorrect operators, especially in security-critical sections like authentication, authorization, and input validation routines.
Impacto en el mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-480

  • CVE-2022-3979

    Chain: data visualization program written in PHP uses the "!=" operator instead of the type-strict "!==" operator (CWE-480) when validating hash values, potentially leading to an incorrect type conversion (CWE-704)

  • CVE-2021-3116

    Chain: Python-based HTTP Proxy server uses the wrong boolean operators (CWE-480) causing an incorrect comparison (CWE-697) that identifies an authN failure if all three conditions are met instead of only one, allowing bypass of the proxy authentication (CWE-1390)

Cómo lo explotan los atacantes

Ruta del atacante paso a paso

  1. 1

    The following C/C++ and C# examples attempt to validate an int input parameter against the integer value 100.

  2. 2

    However, the expression to be evaluated in the if statement uses the assignment operator "=" rather than the comparison operator "==". The result of using the assignment operator instead of the comparison operator causes the int variable to be reassigned locally and the expression in the if statement will always evaluate to the value on the right hand side of the expression. This will result in the input value not being properly validated, which can cause unexpected results.

  3. 3

    The following C/C++ example shows a simple implementation of a stack that includes methods for adding and removing integer values from the stack. The example uses pointers to add and remove integer values to the stack array variable.

  4. 4

    The push method includes an expression to assign the integer value to the location in the stack pointed to by the pointer variable.

  5. 5

    However, this expression uses the comparison operator "==" rather than the assignment operator "=". The result of using the comparison operator instead of the assignment operator causes erroneous values to be entered into the stack and can cause unexpected results.

Ejemplo de código vulnerable

Vulnerable C

The following C/C++ and C# examples attempt to validate an int input parameter against the integer value 100.

Vulnerable C 
int isValid(int value) {
  	if (value=100) {
  		printf("Value is valid\n");
  		return(1);
  	}
  	printf("Value is not valid\n");
  	return(0);
  }
Ejemplo de código seguro

Secure Verilog

A fix to this issue is to only change the privilege level of the processor when both checks are satisfied, i.e., the request has enough privileges (i.e., debug_mode_q is enabled) and the password checking is successful (i.e., umode_i is enabled) [REF-1378].

Seguro Verilog 
module csr_regfile #(
 ...

```
   // check that we actually want to enter debug depending on the privilege level we are currently in
   unique case (priv_lvl_o)
  	 riscv::PRIV_LVL_M: begin
  		 debug_mode_d = dcsr_q.ebreakm;
 ...
  	 riscv::PRIV_LVL_U: begin
  		 debug_mode_d = dcsr_q.ebreaku;
 ...
   assign priv_lvl_o = 
```
(debug_mode_q && umode_i) ? riscv::PRIV_LVL_M : priv_lvl_q;** 
   ...

```
   debug_mode_q <= debug_mode_d;
 ...
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Lista de prevención

How to prevent CWE-480

  • Architecture Use safe-by-default frameworks and APIs that prevent the unsafe pattern from being expressible.
  • Implementation Validate input at trust boundaries; use allowlists, not denylists.
  • Implementation Apply the principle of least privilege to credentials, file paths, and runtime permissions.
  • Testing Cover this weakness in CI: SAST rules + targeted unit tests for the data flow.
  • Operation Monitor logs for the runtime signals listed in the next section.
Señales de detección

How to detect CWE-480

Automated Static Analysis

This weakness can be found easily using static analysis. However in some cases an operator might appear to be incorrect, but is actually correct and reflects unusual logic within the program.

Manual Static Analysis

This weakness can be found easily using static analysis. However in some cases an operator might appear to be incorrect, but is actually correct and reflects unusual logic within the program.

Auto-corrección de Plexicus

Plexicus detecta automáticamente CWE-480 y abre un PR de corrección en menos de 60 segundos.

Codex Remedium escanea cada commit, identifica esta debilidad concreta y entrega un pull request listo para revisión con el parche. Sin tickets. Sin traspasos.

Solicitar demo Probar Plexicus gratis
Preguntas frecuentes

Frequently asked questions

¿Qué es CWE-480?

This vulnerability occurs when a developer mistakenly uses the wrong operator in their code, leading to unintended and potentially insecure logic.

¿Qué gravedad tiene CWE-480?

MITRE califica la probabilidad de explotación como Baja — la explotación es poco frecuente, pero la debilidad debe corregirse cuando se descubra.

¿Qué lenguajes o plataformas se ven afectados por CWE-480?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: C, C++, Perl.

¿Cómo puedo prevenir CWE-480?

Use safe-by-default frameworks, validate untrusted input at trust boundaries, and apply the principle of least privilege. Cover the data-flow signature in CI with SAST.

¿Cómo detecta y corrige Plexicus CWE-480?

El motor SAST de Plexicus detecta la firma de flujo de datos para CWE-480 en cada commit. Cuando hay coincidencia, nuestro agente Codex Remedium abre un PR de corrección con el código corregido, las pruebas y un resumen de una línea para el revisor.

¿Dónde puedo aprender más sobre CWE-480?

MITRE publica la definición canónica en https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/480.html. También puedes consultar la documentación de OWASP y NIST para guías relacionadas.

Debilidades relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-480

CWE-670 Padre

Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation

This weakness occurs when a section of code is structured in a way that always executes incorrectly, regardless of input or conditions.…

CWE-483 Hermano

Incorrect Block Delimitation

This vulnerability occurs when a developer fails to use explicit braces or delimiters to group multiple statements within a block, leading…

CWE-484 Hermano

Omitted Break Statement in Switch

This vulnerability occurs when a developer forgets to include a 'break' statement inside a switch-case block. Without it, the code…

CWE-617 Hermano

Reachable Assertion

A reachable assertion occurs when an attacker can trigger an assert() statement or similar debugging check, causing the application to…

CWE-698 Hermano

Execution After Redirect (EAR)

Execution After Redirect (EAR) occurs when a web application sends a redirect response to a user's browser but continues to run…

CWE-783 Hermano

Operator Precedence Logic Error

This vulnerability occurs when a developer writes a conditional expression where the intended logic is broken due to misunderstanding or…

CWE-481 Hijo

Assigning instead of Comparing

This flaw occurs when a developer accidentally uses the assignment operator (=) instead of the comparison operator (== or ===). The code…

CWE-482 Hijo

Comparing instead of Assigning

This vulnerability occurs when a developer accidentally uses a comparison operator (like '==') where an assignment operator (like '=') was…

CWE-597 Hijo

Use of Wrong Operator in String Comparison

This vulnerability occurs when a developer incorrectly compares string values, typically by using reference equality operators (like == or…

Recursos

Further reading

Listo cuando tú lo estés

Deja de pagar por desarrollador.
Empieza a cerrar el bucle.

Plexicus es el ASPM nativo de IA que escanea, filtra, corrige, pentestea y explica — de forma autónoma. Desarrolladores ilimitados, repos ilimitados, acciones de IA de uso justo. Nivel gratuito real, €269/mo anual cuando estés listo.

Comenzar gratis Reservar una demo