I agree that CWEs could use some updates. In addition to possible new CWEs, I 
remember looking at a few that didn't have code examples and thinking that they 
could benefit from that.

I would however, push back just a little on stand alone software not being a 
common case. I think it depends on your area. For the average at home user a 
trend toward cloud is probably true. But we see a lot of software in the field 
I'm in and it is rarely ever cloud based.
From: Kurt Seifried <k...@seifried.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:21 PM
To: Steve Grubb <sgr...@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven M Christey <co...@mitre.org>; CWE Research Discussion 
Subject: [External] - Re: Bad loop construct

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

On a related item, I'm doing a CWE a week with my Smartcontracts working group 
(~10 total and then we'll release a short paper on it at the end of summer) at 
the Cloud Security Alliance. Longer term my plan is to look at all the stuff 
covered in places like rekt.news or Microsoft blog entries and so on, and make 
sure it maps cleanly to a CWE, and if not, to make a CWE for it. E.g. so far:
[Screenshot 2022-05-31 191808.png]

I've submitted 1, 3, and 4 so far, and 5 are going in next week (3 for 1 sale 
=). In my mind every CVE/vuln/etc writeup should map to a CWE, and I don't mean 

We literally need a few hundred more CWE's, especially in the smart 
contract/blockchain space, and the Cloud SaaS space. CWE is showing its age 
with respect to "software" being something you download and run locally. That's 
not the case so much anymore.

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 3:30 PM Steve Grubb 
<sgr...@redhat.com<mailto:sgr...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hello everyone,

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 5:49:57 PM EDT Steven M Christey wrote:
> Kurt said “I've seen code with loops of one because of future growth, or
> because various options were removed and it's easier than refactoring the
> code” – so a CWE-related writeup wouldn’t want to inadvertently call all
> loops of size 1 “bad.”

>From what I can see, it's a mixed bag. There are cases like Kurt mentioned,
but also some that are thinko's.

> But remember that a weakness is about a <mistake> that only becomes a
> vulnerability <under the right conditions.> Code analysis tools report
> weaknesses all the time, but determining false positives is a different
> story that’s not in CWE’s purview. Similarly, external parties can decide
> which CWEs become a “requirement” or not – it’s primarily CWE’s
> responsibility to provide the identifier and explanation for the mistake,
> and how it can (at least sometimes) contribute to vulnerabilities.
> In this “dir” example, we can’t be clear whether the developer made a
> mistake or not. But we can observe that there’s a loop construct with only
> one element, and that it’s (sometimes) going to be a mistake. And it seems
> like such constructs could occur in most languages.
> I’m not sure how deep CWE should go to cover “just bad syntax,” but for
> this example, I think CWE-670 is probably the closest match in spirit –
> the algorithm (probably) isn’t implementing the logic that the programmer
> thought they were implementing. There’s a good argument for CWE-1164 as
> well, though, since the developer might be doing this intentionally even
> though the code is not technically essential.

In the end, we chose 1164. It was added to a csv file where we are cateloging
warnings from a couple tools and mapping to CWE. It is here in case anyone
finds it useful:


Thanks for the help!


Kurt Seifried (He/Him)
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments from COLSA 
Corporation may contain company sensitive and/or proprietary information, and 
is intended only for the named recipient to whom it was originally addressed. 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, distribution, or copying 
of this e-mail or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and 
permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments.

COLSA Proprietary

Reply via email to