Goal Reached Thanks to every supporter — we hit 100%!

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%

CWE-120 (未进行输入大小检查的缓冲区拷贝(传统缓冲区溢出)) — Vulnerability Class 1767

1767 vulnerabilities classified as CWE-120 (未进行输入大小检查的缓冲区拷贝(传统缓冲区溢出)). AI Chinese analysis included.

CWE-120 represents a critical memory safety vulnerability where software copies data into a fixed-size buffer without validating the input’s length against the destination’s capacity. This classic buffer overflow occurs when an attacker supplies input exceeding the allocated memory space, causing data to spill into adjacent memory regions. Exploitation typically involves injecting malicious code or altering program control flow, such as overwriting return addresses to execute arbitrary commands. Developers prevent this weakness by implementing rigorous bounds checking before any copy operation, ensuring the input size never exceeds the buffer’s limits. Utilizing safer, language-specific functions that automatically handle size verification, or adopting modern programming languages with built-in memory safety features, effectively mitigates this risk and preserves application integrity against memory corruption attacks.

MITRE CWE Description
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Common Consequences (2)
Integrity, Confidentiality, AvailabilityModify Memory, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Buffer overflows often can be used to execute arbitrary code, which is usually outside the scope of the product's implicit security policy. This can often be used to subvert any other security service.
AvailabilityModify Memory, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
Buffer overflows generally lead to crashes. Other attacks leading to lack of availability are possible, including putting the product into an infinite loop.
Mitigations (5)
RequirementsUse a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a lan…
Architecture and DesignUse a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega [REF-57], and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft [REF-56]. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
Operation, Build and CompilationUse automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND [REF-1334] discusses…
Effectiveness: Defense in Depth
ImplementationConsider adhering to the following rules when allocating and managing an application's memory: Double check that your buffer is as large as you specify. When using functions that accept a number of bytes to copy, such as strncpy(), be aware that if the destination buffer size is equal to the source buffer size, it may not NULL-terminate the string. Check buffer boundaries if accessing the buffer i…
ImplementationAssume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range…
Examples (2)
The following code asks the user to enter their last name and then attempts to store the value entered in the last_name array.
char last_name[20]; printf ("Enter your last name: "); scanf ("%s", last_name);
Bad · C
The following code attempts to create a local copy of a buffer to perform some manipulations to the data.
void manipulate_string(char * string){ char buf[24]; strcpy(buf, string); ... }
Bad · C
CVE IDTitleCVSSSeverityPublished
CVE-2019-25349 scadaApp for iOS 1.1.4.0 - 'Servername' Denial of Service — scadaApp for iOS 7.5 High2026-02-18
CVE-2019-25326 ipPulse 1.92 - 'Enter Key' Denial of Service — ipPulse 6.2 Medium2026-02-18
CVE-2025-33130 Fixes to common vulnerabilities found in IBM Db2 Merge Backup for Linux, UNIX and Windows — DB2 Merge Backup for Linux, UNIX and Windows 6.5 Medium2026-02-17
CVE-2026-25994 PJSIP has a heap buffer overflow in ICE with long username — pjproject 9.8AICriticalAI2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37215 MSN Password Recovery 1.30 - Denial of Service — MSN Password Recovery 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37213 TextCrawler Pro3.1.1 - Denial of Service — TextCrawler Pro 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37212 SpotMSN 2.4.6 - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor SpotMSN 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37211 SpotIM 2.2 - 'Name' Denial Of Service — Nsauditor SpotIM 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37210 SpotIE 2.9.5 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor SpotIE 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37209 SpotFTP FTP Password Recovery 3.0.0.0 - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor SpotFTP FTP Password Recovery 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37207 SpotDialup 1.6.7 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor SpotDialup 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37206 ShareAlarmPro Advanced Network Access Control - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor ShareAlarmPro Advanced Network Access Control 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37205 RemShutdown 2.9.0.0 - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor RemShutdown 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37204 RemShutdown 2.9.0.0 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor RemShutdown 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37203 Office Product Key Finder 1.5.4 - Denial of Service — Nsauditor Office Product Key Finder 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37201 NetShareWatcher 1.5.8.0 - 'Name' Denial Of Service — Nsauditor NetShareWatcher 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37202 NetworkSleuth 3.0.0.0 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor NetworkSleuth 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37199 NBMonitor 1.6.6.0 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor NBMonitor 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37197 Dnss Domain Name Search Software - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor Dnss Domain Name Search Software 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37195 BlueAuditor 1.7.2.0 - 'Name' Denial of Service — BlueAuditor 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37196 Dnss Domain Name Search Software - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor Dnss Domain Name Search Software 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37194 Backup Key Recovery Recover Keys Crashed Hard Disk Drive 2.2.5 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor Backup Key Recovery Recover Keys Crashed Hard Disk Drive 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37193 ZIP Password Recovery 2.30 - 'ZIP File' Denial of Service — ZIP Password Recovery 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37191 Top Password Software Dialup Password Recovery 1.30 - Denial of Service — Top Password Software Dialup Password Recovery 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37190 Top Password Firefox Password Recovery 2.8 - Denial of Service — Top Password Firefox Password Recovery 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37189 TaskCanvas 1.4.0 - 'Registration' Denial Of Service — TaskCanvas 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37187 SpotDialup 1.6.7 - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor SpotDialup 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37188 SpotOutlook 1.2.6 - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor SpotOutlook 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37185 Backup Key Recovery 2.2.5 - 'Name' Denial of Service — Nsauditor Backup Key Recovery 7.5 High2026-02-11
CVE-2020-37180 GTalk Password Finder 2.2.1 - 'Key' Denial of Service — Nsauditor GTalk Password Finder 7.5 High2026-02-11

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-120 (未进行输入大小检查的缓冲区拷贝(传统缓冲区溢出)) represent 1767 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.