CWE-372: Incomplete Internal State Distinction

What is Incomplete Internal State Distinction?

• Overview: Incomplete Internal State Distinction occurs when a software product fails to accurately determine its current operational state. This can lead to the software mistakenly believing it is in one state (state X) while it is actually in another (state Y), resulting in inappropriate operations that can have security implications.

• Exploitation Methods:

• Attackers can exploit this by manipulating state transitions or triggering operations based on incorrect state assumptions.
• Common attack patterns include state confusion attacks where attackers force the application into an unexpected state to bypass security checks or perform unauthorized actions.

• Security Impact:

• Direct consequences include unauthorized actions being performed, such as data leakage, unauthorized access, or privilege escalation.
• Potential cascading effects involve system instability, data corruption, or further security breaches due to compromised state management.
• Business impact can be significant, leading to financial loss, reputational damage, or legal liabilities due to data breaches or non-compliance with regulations.

• Prevention Guidelines:

• Specific code-level fixes involve implementing clear and distinct state management logic with robust validation to ensure the correct state is maintained.
• Security best practices include rigorous testing for state transition scenarios, employing state machines for complex state management, and using assertions to verify state integrity.
• Recommended tools and frameworks include static analysis tools to detect state management flaws, and utilizing frameworks that support finite state machines or state management libraries.

Corgea can automatically detect and fix Incomplete Internal State Distinction in your codebase. Try Corgea free today.

Technical Details

Likelihood of Exploit: Not specified

Affected Languages: Not Language-Specific

Affected Technologies: Not specified

Vulnerable Code Example

class OrderProcessor:
    def __init__(self):
        self.state = 'initialized'
    
    def process_order(self, order):
        if self.state == 'processing':
            # Process the order
            print("Processing order:", order)
        else:
            print("Cannot process order, invalid state:", self.state)
    
    def start_processing(self):
        # Incorrectly changes the state without proper checks
        self.state = 'processing'  # Vulnerable: Direct state change without validation
    
    def complete_processing(self):
        # Incorrectly changes the state without proper checks
        self.state = 'completed'  # Vulnerable: Direct state change without validation

# Usage
processor = OrderProcessor()
processor.process_order("Order123")  # Outputs: Cannot process order, invalid state: initialized
processor.start_processing()
processor.process_order("Order123")  # Outputs: Processing order: Order123

Explanation of Vulnerability:

• Incomplete Internal State Distinction: The OrderProcessor class lacks a robust state transition model. It directly modifies the state to 'processing' or 'completed' without verifying the current state, which can lead to logical errors and inconsistent behavior in the order processing lifecycle.

How to fix Incomplete Internal State Distinction?

To address this vulnerability, we should implement a structured state transition mechanism with clearly defined and enforced valid state transitions. This involves:

1. Defining Valid States: Clearly define all possible states and permissible transitions between them.
2. State Transition Methods: Implement methods for state transitions that validate the current state before allowing a transition.
3. Error Handling: Gracefully handle invalid state transitions with appropriate error messages or exceptions.

Fixed Code Example

class OrderProcessor:
    def __init__(self):
        self.state = 'initialized'
    
    def process_order(self, order):
        if self.state == 'processing':
            # Process the order
            print("Processing order:", order)
        else:
            print("Cannot process order, invalid state:", self.state)
    
    def start_processing(self):
        # Ensure valid state transition
        if self.state == 'initialized':  # Check current state before transition
            self.state = 'processing'  # Transition to processing
        else:
            print("Cannot start processing, invalid state:", self.state)  # Error handling for invalid state
    
    def complete_processing(self):
        # Ensure valid state transition
        if self.state == 'processing':  # Check current state before transition
            self.state = 'completed'  # Transition to completed
        else:
            print("Cannot complete processing, invalid state:", self.state)  # Error handling for invalid state

# Usage
processor = OrderProcessor()
processor.process_order("Order123")  # Outputs: Cannot process order, invalid state: initialized
processor.start_processing()
processor.process_order("Order123")  # Outputs: Processing order: Order123
processor.complete_processing()
processor.process_order("Order456")  # Outputs: Cannot process order, invalid state: completed

Explanation of Fix:

• State Transition Checks: Added checks to ensure that state transitions occur only when the current state is valid for the transition. For example, start_processing() verifies that the current state is 'initialized' before transitioning to 'processing'.
• Error Handling: Introduced error messages to handle invalid state transitions gracefully, providing feedback when an operation cannot be performed due to an invalid state, thereby maintaining the integrity of the order processing lifecycle.