List of software quality issues with the number of affected components.
category ALL
Policies
Info
Category
Problem
Proprietary ReversingLabs analysis engine supports a wide range of commonly used archive and software packaging formats. Using automated static file decomposition technologies, the engine recursively analyzes complex software packages. Software analysis is typically conducted in multiple steps. Content identification, unpacking, validation, and classification are some of the steps performed on each analyzed file. The analysis engine may sometimes report file integrity problems while performing unpacking or validation steps. In this case, no content was extracted from the package before an analysis error was encountered. This issue is commonly reported for packages with content that may be incomplete or corrupted. In rare occurrences this issue may indicate a problem with the analysis engine's file format parsing functions.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
4 packages
found in
Top 100
22 packages
found in
Top 1k
52 packages
found in
Top 10k
188 packages
in community
Next steps
Confirm that the software package contains incomplete or corrupted content.
Create a new version of the software package that resolves content integrity issues.
Contact the ReversingLabs support team if you suspect that the analysis engine may be causing the issue.
Problem
Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are structured addresses that point to locations and assets on the internet. URLs allow software developers to build complex applications that exchange data with servers that can be hosted in multiple geographical regions. URLs can commonly be found embedded in documentation, configuration files, source code and compiled binaries. One or more embedded URLs were discovered to link to raw files hosted on GitHub. Attackers often abuse popular web services to host malicious payloads. Since code-sharing services URLs are typically allowed by security solutions, using them for payload delivery increases the odds that the malicious code will reach the user. While the presence of code-sharing service locations does not imply malicious intent, all of their uses in a software package should be documented and approved. An increasing number of software supply chain attacks in the open source space leverages the GitHub service to deliver malicious payloads.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
79 packages
found in
Top 100
622 packages
found in
Top 1k
4233 packages
found in
Top 10k
29.36k packages
in community
Next steps
Investigate reported detections.
If the software should not include these network references, investigate your build and release environment for software supply chain compromise.
You should delay the software release until the investigation is completed, or until the issue is risk accepted.
Consider an alternative delivery mechanism for software packages.
Problem
Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) is a group of enhanced compile-time checks that report common coding mistakes as errors, preventing them from reaching production. These checks minimize the number of security issues by enforcing strict memory access checks. They also prevent the use of hard-to-secure string and memory manipulation functions. To prove the binary has been compiled with these checks enabled, the compiler emits a special debug object. Removing the debug table eliminates this proof. Therefore, this check only applies to binaries that still have their debug tables.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
43 packages
found in
Top 100
257 packages
found in
Top 1k
754 packages
found in
Top 10k
3.7k packages
in community
Next steps
You should keep the debug table to prove that the SDL process has been followed.
To enable these checks, refer to your programming language toolchain documentation.
In Microsoft VisualStudio, you can enable this feature by setting the compiler option /SDL to ON.
Problem
Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) is a group of enhanced compile-time checks that report common coding mistakes as errors. These checks prevent the use of hard-to-secure memory manipulation functions. They enforce static memory access checks, and allow only the use of range-verified memory access functions. While these checks do not prevent every memory corruption issue by themselves, they do help reduce the likelihood.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
25 packages
found in
Top 100
134 packages
found in
Top 1k
216 packages
found in
Top 10k
904 packages
in community
Next steps
It's highly recommended to enable these checks for all software components used at security boundaries, or those that process user controlled inputs.
To enable these checks, refer to your programming language toolchain documentation.
In Microsoft VisualStudio, you can enable this feature by setting the compiler option /SDL to ON.
Problem
Buffer overrun protection on Linux is achieved in two ways. The most common solution is to use the stack canary (also called cookie). The stack canary is a special value written onto the stack that allows the operating system to detect and terminate the program if a stack overrun occurs. In most cases, compilers will apply the stack canary conservatively in order to avoid a negative performance impact. Therefore, stack canaries are often used together with another stack overrun mitigation - fortified functions. Fortified functions are usually wrappers around standard glibc functions (such as memcpy) which perform boundary checks either at compile time or run time to determine if a memory violation has occurred. The compiler needs additional context to generate such calls (for example, array size that needs to be known at compile time). Because of this, the compiler will virtually never substitute all viable functions with their fortified counterparts in complex programs. However, when combined with the stack canary, fortified functions provide a good measure of buffer overrun protection.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
31 packages
found in
Top 100
180 packages
found in
Top 1k
449 packages
found in
Top 10k
1.78k packages
in community
Next steps
Presence of unfortified memory functions may indicate use of unsafe programming practices, and you should avoid it if possible.
In GCC, enable fortified functions with -fstack-protector and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 flag, while using at least -O1 optimization level.
Problem
Buffer overrun protection on Linux is achieved in two ways. The most common solution is to use the stack canary (also called cookie). The stack canary is a special value written onto the stack that allows the operating system to detect and terminate the program if a stack overrun occurs. In most cases, compilers will apply the stack canary conservatively in order to avoid a negative performance impact. Therefore, stack canaries are often used together with another stack overrun mitigation - fortified functions. Fortified functions are usually wrappers around standard glibc functions (such as memcpy) which perform boundary checks either at compile time or run time to determine if a memory violation has occurred. The compiler needs additional context to generate such calls (for example, array size that needs to be known at compile time). Because of this, the compiler will virtually never substitute all viable functions with their fortified counterparts in complex programs. However, when combined with the stack canary, fortified functions provide a good measure of buffer overrun protection.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
26 packages
found in
Top 100
153 packages
found in
Top 1k
262 packages
found in
Top 10k
950 packages
in community
Next steps
Presence of some input functions may indicate use of unsafe programming practices, and you should avoid it if possible.
In GCC, enable fortified functions with -fstack-protector and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 flag, while using at least -O1 optimization level.
Problem
Software components contain executable code that performs actions implemented during its development. These actions are called behaviors. In the analysis report, behaviors are presented as human-readable descriptions that best match the underlying code intent. While most behaviors are benign, some are commonly abused by malicious software with the intent to cause harm. When a software package shares behavior traits with malicious software, it may become flagged by security solutions. Any detection from security solutions can cause friction for the end-users during software deployment. While the behavior is likely intended by the developer, there is a small chance this detection is true positive, and an early indication of a software supply chain attack.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
60 packages
found in
Top 100
434 packages
found in
Top 1k
2301 packages
found in
Top 10k
13.88k packages
in community
Next steps
Investigate reported detections.
If the software intent does not relate to the reported behavior, investigate your build and release environment for software supply chain compromise.
You should delay the software release until the investigation is completed, or until the issue is risk accepted.
Consider rewriting the flagged code without using the marked behaviors.
Problem
Obfuscation is a process of mangling the software code legibility. Obfuscation can be applied to both the application source and its compiled code counterpart. In both cases, obfuscation can interfere with the accuracy of security and software quality assessment solutions. For this reason, obfuscation is a technique commonly used by malicious actors as a means of bypassing security solutions and avoiding detection. While presence of obfuscation does not imply malicious intent, all of its uses in a software package should be documented and approved. One example of acceptable use for code obfuscation is minimizing the size of script files that are not intended to be read by humans. In such a case, the trade-off between file size and code legibility is considered acceptable.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
8 packages
found in
Top 100
40 packages
found in
Top 1k
96 packages
found in
Top 10k
506 packages
in community
Next steps
Investigate reported detections as indicators of software tampering.
Consult Mitre ATT&CK documentation: T1027 - Obfuscated Files or Information.
Consider an alternative to code obfuscation to lower the risk of being mistakenly flagged by security solutions.
Problem
Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are structured addresses that point to locations and assets on the internet. URLs allow software developers to build complex applications that exchange data with servers that can be hosted in multiple geographical regions. URLs can commonly be found embedded in documentation, configuration files, source code and compiled binaries. Top-level domains (TLD) are a part of the Domain Name System (DNS), and are used to lookup an Internet Protocol (IP) address of a requested website. There are a few different types of top-level domains. Generic, sponsored and country-code TLDs are generally accessible to the public. Registrars that govern the assignment of domain names within the TLD may choose to sell specific domain names to an interested party. However, some registrars are known to have less strict rules for assigning domain names. Attackers often abuse gaps in governance and actively seek to register their malicious domains in such TLDs. This issue is raised for all domains registered within TLDs that harbor an excessive number of malicious sites. While the presence of suspicious TLDs does not imply malicious intent, all of its uses in a software package should be documented and approved.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
44 packages
found in
Top 100
321 packages
found in
Top 1k
1549 packages
found in
Top 10k
16.36k packages
in community
Next steps
Investigate reported detections.
If the software should not include these network references, investigate your build and release environment for software supply chain compromise.
You should delay the software release until the investigation is completed, or until the issue is risk accepted.
Consider changing the top-level domain to avoid being flagged by security solutions.
Problem
Common compilers often embed source code information into executables for debugging purposes, usually by mapping symbols to source filenames or paths. While this is typically desirable in open-source software and standard tools, that information can be used to determine security weaknesses, code repository layout, trade secrets and similar sensitive information. Such symbols make it easier to reverse-engineer a closed source application.
Prevalence in Visual Studio Code community
35 packages
found in
Top 100
248 packages
found in
Top 1k
593 packages
found in
Top 10k
2.32k packages
in community
Next steps
Strip out such information in the linking phase by using compiler options like the -s flag in GCC, or in the post-build phase by using the strip tool.