What is the primary vulnerability in the following code?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Unsigned integer overflow occurs when a fixed-width unsigned type wraps around its maximum value, so len + 1 can become 0 for a 16-bit unsigned value. This is the core issue.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- uint16_t is a 16-bit unsigned integer with range 0..65535. Arithmetic on unsigned integers wraps modulo 2^n.
- malloc takes a size_t size; passing a small wrapped value causes underallocation.
- memcpy copies the specified number of bytes regardless of the destination allocation; copying more than allocated leads to buffer overflow.
- Writing a null terminator at buffer[len] assumes buffer has space for len+1 bytes.

2. Step-by-step reasoning
- The code computes: uint16_t total = len + 1; then calls malloc(total).
- If len == 65535 (UINT16_MAX), then len + 1 evaluates in uint16_t arithmetic to 0 (wrap-around).
- malloc(0) may return NULL or a pointer to no usable storage; in any case it does not provide len bytes of space.
- The code then does memcpy(buffer, input, len) and buffer[len] = '\0', which attempt to access len bytes and one more byte beyond the (non-)allocation.

3. Calculations / intermediate steps
- Example: len = 65535.
- total = len + 1 = 65535 + 1 = 65536 ≡ 0 (mod 2^16) → total == 0.
- malloc(total) becomes malloc(0) → zero bytes allocated.
- memcpy(buffer, input, 65535) copies 65535 bytes into a buffer with 0 bytes allocated → buffer overflow.
- buffer[65535] = '\0' writes out of bounds as well.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- The root vulnerability is the integer overflow on len + 1 stored in uint16_t which causes underallocation and then out-of-bounds writes. That precisely matches "Adding 1 to len may cause an integer overflow, leading to under allocation."

5. Why other options are incorrect (brief)
- "malloc should always be followed by calloc": false and meaningless; calloc is not required.
- "null byte is added at wrong index": buffer[len] is correct when len+1 bytes are allocated.
- "malloc may allocate too much if len is zero": actually it allocates 1 byte (total = 1) so not an issue.
- "returns a void * means values lost and memory leak": returning void* is valid for a generic pointer; not a leak by itself.
- "memcpy before null-termination is undefined": memcpy is fine; writing the terminator after copying is normal.

6. Conclusion
The primary vulnerability is integer overflow when adding 1 to len (uint16_t), causing underallocation — matching the provided answer.

What is the primary vulnerability in the following code?Single choice

Similar Questions

Which of the following is a potential issue when computing mid = (low + high) // 2 for very large lists?

When might you encounter a problem with integer overflow? 什么时候可能会遇到整数溢出问题？

An overflow error takes place when:

Consider the following code: long y = 9223372036854775807L; y = y + 1; System.out.println(y); What number does the program print when compiled and run? Hint: think about the max value you just looked up in your previous answer.

(Continuing the add Ada function from the previous question.) If we compile and run an Ada version of this function, on a platform with 32-bit Integers, passing it the values of a = 2147483647 and b = 10, the program results in a CONSTRAINT_ERROR being raised. Why does this error occur:

What can happen when a calculated value is too large to be represented by the available number of bits in a fixed-size data type?

When evaluating a new project, firms should include in the projected cash flows all of the following EXCEPT:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler