CWE-561 Dead Code

The product contains dead code, which can never be executed.

• Other: Quality Degradation — Dead code that results from code that can never be executed is an indication of problems with the source code that needs to be fixed and is an indication of poor quality. • Other: Reduce Maintainability • Other: Varies by Context, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands — In some cases, dead code can be reachable or exploitable by attackers after they exploit another weakness or vulnerability that can access the code. For example, some buffer overflow exploits could modify addresses to point to locations that contain dead code.

• [Implementation] Remove dead code before deploying the application.

• Architecture or Design Review: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: • Attack Modeling • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Binary / Bytecode Quality Analysis • Compare binary / bytecode to application permission manifest • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Automated Monitored Execution • Automated Static Analysis: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Permission Manifest Analysis • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Source Code Quality Analyzer Cost effective for partial coverage: • Warning Flags • Source code Weakness Analyzer • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: • Web Application Scanner • Web Services Scanner • Database Scanners • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code: According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) Cost effective for partial coverage: • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source

• CVE-2014-1266: Chain: incorrect "goto" in Apple SSL product bypasses certificate validation, allowing Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack (Apple "goto fail" bug). CWE-705 (Incorrect Control Flow Scoping) -> CWE-561 (Dead Code) -> CWE-295 (Improper Certificate Validation) -> CWE-393 (Return of Wrong Status Code) -> CWE-300 (Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint). The code's whitespace indentation did not reflect the actual control flow (CWE-1114) and did not explicitly delimit the block (CWE-483), which could have made it more difficult for human code auditors to detect the vulnerability.