CWEweakness
CWE-1429 Missing Security-Relevant Feedback for Unexecuted Operations in Hardware Interface
- Abstraction
- Base
- Structure
- Simple
- Status
- Incomplete
- Languages
- C, C++, Hardware Description Language, Not Language-Specific, Verilog
- CWE version
- 5.0
Description
The product has a hardware interface that silently discards operations
in situations for which feedback would be security-relevant, such as
the timely detection of failures or attacks.
Extended description
While some systems intentionally withhold feedback as a security
measure, this approach must be strictly controlled to ensure it does
not obscure operational failures that require prompt detection and
remediation. Without these essential confirmations, failures go
undetected, increasing the risk of data loss, security
vulnerabilities, and overall system instability. Even when withholding
feedback is an intentional part of a security policy designed, for
example, to prevent attackers from gleaning sensitive internal
details, the absence of expected feedback becomes a critical weakness
when it masks operational failures that require prompt detection and
remediation.
For instance, certain encryption algorithms always return ciphertext
regardless of errors to prevent attackers from gaining insight into
internal state details. However, if such an algorithm fails to
generate the expected ciphertext and provides no error feedback, the
system cannot distinguish between a legitimate output and a
malfunction. This can lead to undetected cryptographic failures,
potentially compromising data security and system reliability. Without
proper notification, a critical failure might remain hidden,
undermining both the reliability and security of the process.
Therefore, this weakness captures issues across various hardware
interfaces where operations are discarded without any feedback, error
handling, or logging. Such omissions can lead to data loss, security
vulnerabilities, and system instability, with potential impacts
ranging from minor to catastrophic.
For some kinds of hardware products, some errors may be correctly
identified and subsequently discarded, and the lack of feedback may
have been an intentional design decision. However, this could result
in a weakness if system operators or other authorized entities are not
provided feedback about security-critical operations or failures that
could prevent the operators from detecting and responding to an
attack.
For example:
• In a System-on-Chip (SoC) platform, write operations to reserved
memory addresses might be correctly identified as invalid and
subsequently discarded. However, if no feedback is provided to
system operators, they may misinterpret the device's state, failing
to recognize conditions that could lead to broader failures or
security vulnerabilities. For example, if an attacker attempts
unauthorized writes to protected regions, the system may silently
discard these writes without alerting security mechanisms. This lack
of feedback could obscure intrusion attempts or misconfigurations,
increasing the risk of unnoticed system compromise
• Microcontroller Interrupt Systems: When interrupts are silently
ignored due to priority conflicts or internal errors without
notifying higher-level control, it becomes challenging to diagnose
system failures or detect potential security breaches in a timely
manner.
• Network Interface Controllers: Dropping packets - perhaps due to
buffer overflows - without any error feedback can not only cause data
loss but may also contribute to exploitable timing discrepancies
that reveal sensitive internal processing details.
Common consequences
• Confidentiality: Read Memory, Read Files or Directories — Critical data may be exposed if operations are unexecuted or
discarded silently, allowing attackers to exploit the lack of
feedback.
• Integrity: Modify Memory, Modify Files or Directories — Operations may proceed based on incorrect assumptions,
potentially causing data corruption or incorrect system behavior. In
integrity-sensitive contexts, failing to signal that an operation did
not occur as expected can mask errors that disrupt data
consistency. Without feedback, the mitigation measures that should
ensure updates have been performed cannot be verified, leaving the
system vulnerable to both accidental and malicious data alterations.
• Availability: DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart — Unhandled discarded operations can lead to resource exhaustion,
triggering system crashes or denial of service. For availability,
consistent feedback is crucial. Without proper notification of
discarded operations, administrators or other authorized entities
might miss early warning signs of resource imbalances. This delayed
detection could allow a DoS condition to develop, compromising the
system's ability to serve legitimate requests and maintain continuous
operations.
Potential mitigations
• [Architecture and Design] Incorporate logging and feedback mechanisms during the
design phase to ensure proper handling of discarded operations.
• [Implementation] Developers should ensure that every critical operation
includes proper logging or error feedback mechanisms.
Detection methods
• Automated Static Analysis - Source Code: Scans code for missing error handling or feedback mechanisms.
• Manual Static Analysis - Source Code: Experts manually inspect the code for unhandled operations.
Observed examples
• [REF-1468]: Open source silicon root of trust (RoT) product does not immediately report when an integrity check fails for memory requests, causing the product to accept and continue processing data [REF-1468]
Related
Child of · CWE (1)
- CWE-223 Omission of Security-relevant Information weakness
Peer of · CWE (1)
- CWE-392 Missing Report of Error Condition weakness