CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check (Base)

Description: The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.

Extended Description: An attacker can execute malicious code by compromising the host server, performing DNS spoofing, or modifying the code in transit.



Applicable Platforms: ::LANGUAGE CLASS:Not Language-Specific:LANGUAGE PREVALENCE:Undetermined::

Modes of Introduction: ::PHASE:Architecture and Design:NOTE:OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.::PHASE:Implementation::



Common Consequences: ::SCOPE:Integrity:SCOPE:Availability:SCOPE:Confidentiality:SCOPE:Other:IMPACT:Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands:IMPACT:Alter Execution Logic:IMPACT:Other:NOTE:Executing untrusted code could compromise the control flow of the program. The untrusted code could execute attacker-controlled commands, read or modify sensitive resources, or prevent the software from functioning correctly for legitimate users.::

Detection Methods: ::METHOD:Manual Analysis:DESCRIPTION:This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual static analysis is typically required to find the behavior that triggers the download of code, and to determine whether integrity-checking methods are in use.::METHOD:Black Box:DESCRIPTION:Use monitoring tools that examine the software's process as it interacts with the operating system and the network. This technique is useful in cases when source code is unavailable, if the software was not developed by you, or if you want to verify that the build phase did not introduce any new weaknesses. Examples include debuggers that directly attach to the running process; system-call tracing utilities such as truss (Solaris) and strace (Linux); system activity monitors such as FileMon, RegMon, Process Monitor, and other Sysinternals utilities (Windows); and sniffers and protocol analyzers that monitor network traffic. Attach the monitor to the process and also sniff the network connection. Trigger features related to product updates or plugin installation, which is likely to force a code download. Monitor when files are downloaded and separately executed, or if they are otherwise read back into the process. Look for evidence of cryptographic library calls that use integrity checking.::METHOD:Automated Static Analysis:DESCRIPTION: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.):EFFECTIVENESS:High::

Potential Mitigations: ::PHASE:Implementation:DESCRIPTION:Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.::PHASE:Architecture and Design Operation:DESCRIPTION:Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting. This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.::PHASE:Architecture and Design:STRATEGY:Libraries or Frameworks:DESCRIPTION:Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code. When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses. Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].::PHASE:Architecture and Design Operation:STRATEGY:Environment Hardening:DESCRIPTION:Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.::PHASE:Architecture and Design Operation:STRATEGY:Sandbox or Jail:DESCRIPTION:Run the code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.:EFFECTIVENESS:Limited::

Observed Examples: ::REFERENCE:CVE-2019-9534:DESCRIPTION:Satellite phone does not validate its firmware image.:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2019-9534::REFERENCE:CVE-2021-22909:DESCRIPTION:Chain: router's firmware update procedure uses curl with -k (insecure) option that disables certificate validation (CWE-295), allowing adversary-in-the-middle (AITM) compromise with a malicious firmware image (CWE-494).:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-22909::REFERENCE:CVE-2008-3438:DESCRIPTION:OS does not verify authenticity of its own updates.:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2008-3438::REFERENCE:CVE-2008-3324:DESCRIPTION:online poker client does not verify authenticity of its own updates.:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2008-3324::REFERENCE:CVE-2001-1125:DESCRIPTION:anti-virus product does not verify automatic updates for itself.:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2001-1125::REFERENCE:CVE-2002-0671:DESCRIPTION:VOIP phone downloads applications from web sites without verifying integrity.:LINK:https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2002-0671::



Notes: ::TYPE:Research Gap:NOTE:This is critical for mobile code, but it is likely to become more and more common as developers continue to adopt automated, network-based product distributions and upgrades. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) might introduce additional subtleties. Common exploitation scenarios may include ad server compromises and bad upgrades.::