Description
The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.
Race conditions frequently occur in signal handlers, since signal handlers support asynchronous actions. These race conditions have a variety of root causes and symptoms. Attackers may be able to exploit a signal handler race condition to cause the product state to be corrupted, possibly leading to a denial of service or even code execution. These issues occur when non-reentrant functions, or state-sensitive actions occur in the signal handler, where they may be called at any time. These behaviors can violate assumptions being made by the "regular" code that is interrupted, or by other signal handlers that may also be invoked. If these functions are called at an inopportune moment - such as while a non-reentrant function is already running - memory corruption could occur that may be exploitable for code execution. Another signal race condition commonly found occurs when free is called within a signal handler, resulting in a double free and therefore a write-what-where condition. Even if a given pointer is set to NULL after it has been freed, a race condition still exists between the time the memory was freed and the pointer was set to NULL. This is especially problematic if the same signal handler has been set for more than one signal -- since it means that the signal handler itself may be reentered. There are several known behaviors related to signal handlers that have received the label of "signal handler race condition": Signal handler vulnerabilities are often classified based on the absence of a specific protection mechanism, although this style of classification is discouraged in CWE because programmers often have a choice of several different mechanisms for addressing the weakness. Such protection mechanisms may preserve exclusivity of access to the shared resource, and behavioral atomicity for the relevant code:
Potential Impact
Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability
Modify Application Data, Modify Memory, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Access Control
Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Demonstrative Examples
char *logMessage;
void handler (int sigNum) {
syslog(LOG_NOTICE, "%s\n", logMessage);free(logMessage);
/* artificially increase the size of the timing window to make demonstration of this weakness easier. */
sleep(10);exit(0);
}
int main (int argc, char* argv[]) {
logMessage = strdup(argv[1]);
/* Register signal handlers. */
signal(SIGHUP, handler);signal(SIGTERM, handler);
/* artificially increase the size of the timing window to make demonstration of this weakness easier. */
sleep(10);
}#include <signal.h>#include <syslog.h>#include <string.h>#include <stdlib.h>
void *global1, *global2;char *what;void sh (int dummy) {
syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"%s\n",what);free(global2);free(global1);
/* Sleep statements added to expand timing window for race condition */
sleep(10);exit(0);
}
int main (int argc,char* argv[]) {
what=argv[1];global1=strdup(argv[2]);global2=malloc(340);signal(SIGHUP,sh);signal(SIGTERM,sh);
/* Sleep statements added to expand timing window for race condition */
sleep(10);exit(0);
}Mitigations & Prevention
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Design signal handlers to only set flags, rather than perform complex functionality. These flags can then be checked and acted upon within the main program loop.
Only use reentrant functions within signal handlers. Also, use validation to ensure that state is consistent while performing asynchronous actions that affect the state of execution.
Detection Methods
- Automated Static Analysis — 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 sea
Real-World CVE Examples
| CVE ID | Description |
|---|---|
| CVE-1999-0035 | Signal handler does not disable other signal handlers, allowing it to be interrupted, causing other functionality to access files/etc. with raised privileges |
| CVE-2001-0905 | Attacker can send a signal while another signal handler is already running, leading to crash or execution with root privileges |
| CVE-2001-1349 | unsafe calls to library functions from signal handler |
| CVE-2004-0794 | SIGURG can be used to remotely interrupt signal handler; other variants exist |
| CVE-2004-2259 | SIGCHLD signal to FTP server can cause crash under heavy load while executing non-reentrant functions like malloc/free. |
Related Weaknesses
Taxonomy Mappings
- PLOVER: — Signal handler race condition
- 7 Pernicious Kingdoms: — Signal Handling Race Conditions
- CLASP: — Race condition in signal handler
- Software Fault Patterns: SFP19 — Missing Lock
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CWE-364?
CWE-364 (Signal Handler Race Condition) is a software weakness identified by MITRE's Common Weakness Enumeration. It is classified as a Base-level weakness. The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.
How can CWE-364 be exploited?
Attackers can exploit CWE-364 (Signal Handler Race Condition) to modify application data, modify memory, dos: crash, exit, or restart, execute unauthorized code or commands. This weakness is typically introduced during the Implementation phase of software development.
How do I prevent CWE-364?
Key mitigations include: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
What is the severity of CWE-364?
CWE-364 is classified as a Base-level weakness (Medium abstraction). It has been observed in 5 real-world CVEs.