Skip to content
OpenAdvisories

Weakness (CWE)

CWE-682: Incorrect Calculation

Pillar Draft Mapping discouraged

The product performs a calculation that generates incorrect or unintended results that are later used in security-critical decisions or resource management.

How to prevent it (6 mitigations)
  1. Implementation

    Understand your programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation. Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how your language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation.

  2. Implementation

    Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.

  3. Implementation

    Use the appropriate type for the desired action. For example, in C/C++, only use unsigned types for values that could never be negative, such as height, width, or other numbers related to quantity.

  4. Architecture and Design

    Use languages, libraries, or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences.

    Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++).

  5. Architecture and Design

    Use languages, libraries, or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences.

    Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++).

  6. Implementation

    Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

Source: MITRE CWE-682

44 results · Clear filters · Feed

  • Medium 6.2

    Incorrect calculation in Enbra EWM does not report backflows or no flow events

    In Enbra EWM in Version 1.7.29 together with several tested wireless M-Bus Sensors the events backflow and "no flow" are not reconized or misinterpreted. This may lead to wrong values and missing events.

  • Medium 5.3

    Consensus flaw during block processing

    Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. In Geth from version 1.9.4 and before version 1.9.20 a consensus-vulnerability could cause a chain split, where vulnerable versions refuse to accept the canonical chain. T…

  • Medium 5.3

    Erroneous Proof of Work calculation in geth

    Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. An ethash mining DAG generation flaw in Geth before version 1.9.24 could cause miners to erroneously calculate PoW in an upcoming epoch (estimated early January, 2021). Th…

  • Medium 6.5

    Shallow copy bug in geth

    Go Ethereum, or "Geth", is the official Golang implementation of the Ethereum protocol. This is a Consensus vulnerability in Geth before version 1.9.17 which can be used to cause a chain-split where vulnerable nodes reject the canonical chain. Geth's pre-comp…