CWE-476: NULL Pointer Dereference
low-riskThe product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Common Consequences
Detection Methods
This weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
Identify error conditions that are not likely to occur during normal usage and trigger them. For example, run the program under low memory conditions, run with insufficient privileges or permissions, interrupt a transaction before it is completed, or disable connectivity to basic network services such as DNS. Monitor the software for any unexpected behavior. If you trigger an unhandled exception or similar error that was discovered and handled by the application's environment, it may still indicate unexpected conditions that were not handled by the application itself.
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Use tools that are integrated during compilation to insert runtime error-checking mechanisms related to memory safety errors, such as AddressSanitizer (ASan) for C/C++ [REF-1518].
Real-World Examples (10)
| CVE | CVSS | EPSS | KEV |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2018-8011 | 7.5 | 82.0% | — |
| CVE-2016-0742 | 7.5 | 80.4% | — |
| CVE-2018-0833 | 5.3 | 74.5% | — |
| CVE-2021-26690 | 7.5 | 70.4% | — |
| CVE-2020-1967 | 7.5 | 67.3% | — |
| CVE-2018-1000027 | 7.5 | 66.0% | — |
| CVE-2016-4957 | 7.5 | 59.1% | — |
| CVE-2017-3730 | 7.5 | 52.9% | — |
| CVE-2018-10548 | 7.5 | 52.7% | — |
| CVE-2015-3194 | 7.5 | 51.9% | — |