Class · High

CWE-667: Improper Locking

The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

CWE-667 · Class Level ·26 CVEs ·1 Mitigations

Description

The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

Locking is a type of synchronization behavior that ensures that multiple independently-operating processes or threads do not interfere with each other when accessing the same resource. All processes/threads are expected to follow the same steps for locking. If these steps are not followed precisely - or if no locking is done at all - then another process/thread could modify the shared resource in a way that is not visible or predictable to the original process. This can lead to data or memory corruption, denial of service, etc.

Potential Impact

Availability

DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)

Demonstrative Examples

In the following Java snippet, methods are defined to get and set a long field in an instance of a class that is shared across multiple threads. Because operations on double and long are nonatomic in Java, concurrent access may cause unexpected behavior. Thus, all operations on long and double fields should be synchronized.
Bad
private long someLongValue;public long getLongValue() {return someLongValue;}
                     public void setLongValue(long l) {someLongValue = l;}
This code tries to obtain a lock for a file, then writes to it.
Bad
function writeToLog($message){$logfile = fopen("logFile.log", "a");
                        //attempt to get logfile lock
                        if (flock($logfile, LOCK_EX)) {fwrite($logfile,$message);
                           // unlock logfile
                           flock($logfile, LOCK_UN);}else {print "Could not obtain lock on logFile.log, message not recorded\n";}}fclose($logFile);
PHP by default will wait indefinitely until a file lock is released. If an attacker is able to obtain the file lock, this code will pause execution, possibly leading to denial of service for other users. Note that in this case, if an attacker can perform an flock() on the file, they may already have privileges to destroy the log file. However, this still impacts the execution of other programs that depend on flock().
The following function attempts to acquire a lock in order to perform operations on a shared resource.
Bad
void f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
                        pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
                           
                           /* access shared resource */
                           
                           
                           pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
                     }
However, the code does not check the value returned by pthread_mutex_lock() for errors. If pthread_mutex_lock() cannot acquire the mutex for any reason, the function may introduce a race condition into the program and result in undefined behavior.
In order to avoid data races, correctly written programs must check the result of thread synchronization functions and appropriately handle all errors, either by attempting to recover from them or reporting them to higher levels.
Good
int f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
                        int result;
                           result = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);if (0 != result)return result;
                           
                           
                           /* access shared resource */
                           
                           
                           return pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
                     }
It may seem that the following bit of code achieves thread safety while avoiding unnecessary synchronization...
Bad
if (helper == null) {
                        synchronized (this) {if (helper == null) {helper = new Helper();}}
                     }return helper;
The programmer wants to guarantee that only one Helper() object is ever allocated, but does not want to pay the cost of synchronization every time this code is called.
Suppose that helper is not initialized. Then, thread A sees that helper==null and enters the synchronized block and begins to execute:
Bad
helper = new Helper();
If a second thread, thread B, takes over in the middle of this call and helper has not finished running the constructor, then thread B may make calls on helper while its fields hold incorrect values.

Mitigations & Prevention

Implementation

Use industry standard APIs to implement locking mechanism.

Detection Methods

  • 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 sea

Real-World CVE Examples

CVE IDDescription
CVE-2021-1782Chain: improper locking (CWE-667) leads to race condition (CWE-362), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2009-0935Attacker provides invalid address to a memory-reading function, causing a mutex to be unlocked twice
CVE-2010-4210function in OS kernel unlocks a mutex that was not previously locked, causing a panic or overwrite of arbitrary memory.
CVE-2008-4302Chain: OS kernel does not properly handle a failure of a function call (CWE-755), leading to an unlock of a resource that was not locked (CWE-832), with resultant crash.
CVE-2009-1243OS kernel performs an unlock in some incorrect circumstances, leading to panic.
CVE-2009-2857OS deadlock
CVE-2009-1961OS deadlock involving 3 separate functions
CVE-2009-2699deadlock in library
CVE-2009-4272deadlock triggered by packets that force collisions in a routing table
CVE-2002-1850read/write deadlock between web server and script
CVE-2004-0174web server deadlock involving multiple listening connections
CVE-2009-1388multiple simultaneous calls to the same function trigger deadlock.
CVE-2006-5158chain: other weakness leads to NULL pointer dereference (CWE-476) or deadlock (CWE-833).
CVE-2006-4342deadlock when an operation is performed on a resource while it is being removed.
CVE-2006-2374Deadlock in device driver triggered by using file handle of a related device.

Showing 15 of 26 observed examples.

Taxonomy Mappings

  • CERT C Secure Coding: CON31-C — Do not destroy a mutex while it is locked
  • CERT C Secure Coding: POS48-C — Do not unlock or destroy another POSIX thread's mutex
  • The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011): VNA00-J — Ensure visibility when accessing shared primitive variables
  • The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011): VNA02-J — Ensure that compound operations on shared variables are atomic
  • The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011): VNA05-J — Ensure atomicity when reading and writing 64-bit values
  • The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011): LCK06-J — Do not use an instance lock to protect shared static data
  • Software Fault Patterns: SFP19 — Missing Lock
  • OMG ASCSM: ASCSM-CWE-667 —

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CWE-667?

CWE-667 (Improper Locking) is a software weakness identified by MITRE's Common Weakness Enumeration. It is classified as a Class-level weakness. The product does not properly acquire or release a lock on a resource, leading to unexpected resource state changes and behaviors.

How can CWE-667 be exploited?

Attackers can exploit CWE-667 (Improper Locking) to dos: resource consumption (cpu). This weakness is typically introduced during the Architecture and Design, Implementation phase of software development.

How do I prevent CWE-667?

Key mitigations include: Use industry standard APIs to implement locking mechanism.

What is the severity of CWE-667?

CWE-667 is classified as a Class-level weakness (High abstraction). It has been observed in 26 real-world CVEs.