CWE-675 Classe Brouillon

Multiple Operations on Resource in Single-Operation Context

This vulnerability occurs when a software component performs the same action on a resource multiple times, even though the action is designed to be executed only once. This redundant execution can…

Définition

What is CWE-675?

This vulnerability occurs when a software component performs the same action on a resource multiple times, even though the action is designed to be executed only once. This redundant execution can lead to unintended side effects, data corruption, or resource exhaustion.

Think of this like accidentally hitting 'send' on an email twice. The core issue is that a function or method lacks a proper guard to prevent re-execution on the same target. This often happens in event handlers that don't debounce user clicks, in loops with flawed termination conditions, or when cleanup and initialization routines incorrectly overlap. The duplicate operations waste system resources and can put the application or data into an inconsistent, unpredictable state. For developers, the fix involves implementing idempotence—ensuring an operation produces the same result whether it's run once or multiple times. This can be achieved by using flags to track completion, employing atomic operations, or designing APIs that safely handle repeated calls. Thorough testing with edge cases, especially around user interactions and error recovery paths, is crucial to catch this subtle but impactful flaw.

Impact réel

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-675

CVE-2009-0935

Attacker provides invalid address to a memory-reading function, causing a mutex to be unlocked twice
CVE-2019-13351

file descriptor double close can cause the wrong file to be associated with a file descriptor.
CVE-2004-1939

XSS protection mechanism attempts to remove "/" that could be used to close tags, but it can be bypassed using double encoded slashes (%252F)

Comment les attaquants l'exploitent

Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape

1
The following code shows a simple example of a double free vulnerability.
2
Double free vulnerabilities have two common (and sometimes overlapping) causes:
3
- Error conditions and other exceptional circumstances - Confusion over which part of the program is responsible for freeing the memory
4
Although some double free vulnerabilities are not much more complicated than this example, most are spread out across hundreds of lines of code or even different files. Programmers seem particularly susceptible to freeing global variables more than once.
5
This code binds a server socket to port 21, allowing the server to listen for traffic on that port.

Exemple de code vulnérable

Vulnerable C

The following code shows a simple example of a double free vulnerability.

Vulnérable C

char* ptr = (char*)malloc (SIZE);
  ...
  if (abrt) {
  	free(ptr);
  }
  ...
  free(ptr);

Exemple de code sécurisé

Secure pseudo

Sécurisé 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.

Liste de contrôle de prévention

How to prevent CWE-675

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.

Signaux de détection

How to detect CWE-675

SAST High

Exécuter une analyse statique (SAST) sur le code source à la recherche du motif non sécurisé dans le flux de données.

DAST Moderate

Exécuter des tests de sécurité applicative dynamique (DAST) contre le point de terminaison en ligne.

Runtime Moderate

Surveiller les journaux runtime pour détecter des traces d'exception inhabituelles, des entrées malformées ou des tentatives de contournement d'autorisation.

Code review Moderate

Revue de code : signaler tout nouveau code qui traite les entrées de cette surface sans utiliser les helpers du framework validés.

Correction automatique Plexicus

Plexicus détecte automatiquement CWE-675 et ouvre une PR de correction en moins de 60 secondes.

Codex Remedium analyse chaque commit, identifie cette faiblesse précise et livre une pull request prête à être relue avec le correctif. Pas de tickets. Pas de transferts.

Obtenir une démo Essayer Plexicus gratuitement

Questions fréquentes

Frequently asked questions

Qu'est-ce que CWE-675 ?

Quelle est la gravité de CWE-675 ?

MITRE n'a pas publié de note de probabilité d'exploitation pour cette faiblesse. Traitez-la comme un impact moyen jusqu'à ce que votre modèle de menace prouve le contraire.

Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-675 ?

MITRE n'a pas spécifié les plateformes affectées pour ce CWE — il peut s'appliquer à la plupart des stacks applicatives.

Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-675 ?

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.

Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-675 ?

Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-675 à chaque commit. Lorsqu'une correspondance est trouvée, notre agent Codex Remedium ouvre une PR de correction avec le code corrigé, les tests et un résumé d'une ligne pour le relecteur.

Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-675 ?

MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/675.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.

Faiblesses associées

Weaknesses related to CWE-675

CWE-573 Parent

Improper Following of Specification by Caller

This weakness occurs when software fails to properly follow the documented rules, protocols, or requirements of an external component it…

CWE-103 Frère

Struts: Incomplete validate() Method Definition

This vulnerability occurs in a Struts application when a validator form either completely omits a validate() method or includes one but…

CWE-104 Frère

Struts: Form Bean Does Not Extend Validation Class

This vulnerability occurs in Apache Struts applications when a form bean class does not properly extend the framework's validation class.…

CWE-243 Frère

Creation of chroot Jail Without Changing Working Directory

This vulnerability occurs when a program creates a chroot jail but fails to change its current working directory afterward. Because the…

CWE-253 Frère

Incorrect Check of Function Return Value

This vulnerability occurs when a program misinterprets or improperly validates the return value from a function, causing it to miss…

CWE-296 Frère

Improper Following of a Certificate's Chain of Trust

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to properly validate the entire certificate chain back to a trusted root authority. This…

CWE-304 Frère

Missing Critical Step in Authentication

This vulnerability occurs when a software authentication process omits a required step, weakening its overall security.

CWE-325 Frère

Missing Cryptographic Step

This vulnerability occurs when a software implementation skips a critical step in a cryptographic process, resulting in security that is…

CWE-329 Frère

Generation of Predictable IV with CBC Mode

This vulnerability occurs when software uses a predictable or reused Initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode…

Ressources

Arrêtez de payer par développeur.
Commencez à fermer la boucle.

Plexicus est l'ASPM natif IA qui scanne, filtre, corrige, penteste et explique — de façon autonome. Développeurs illimités, dépôts illimités, actions IA à usage équitable. Vrai niveau gratuit, €269/mo annuel quand vous êtes prêt.

Commencer gratuitement Réserver une démo