Tags (Labels)
Tag | Meaning |
|---|---|
Pages that form the main sections of this standard and that are listed in the Section Index on the SEI CERT C Coding Standard page. | |
Guidelines with links to a rule in 6 The Void. The link should be removed. | |
Guidelines that have been significantly changed since the checker was coded. The checker needs updating. | |
Pages that need work. | |
Pages that need to be deleted. See also void below. | |
Pages that have problems with the citations at the bottom. | |
Pages with comments that might make good sidebars. | |
Guidelines in other CERT secure coding standards (residing in other Wiki spaces) that might make good C guidelines. Port to C those rules that are truly applicable. | |
Guidelines that might be candidates for adoption in the SEI CERT Oracle Coding Standard for Java. | |
Pages tagged for elimination from the standard and that are listed in 6 The Void. |
ROSE-Specific Tags (Labels)
Pages now have tags (also known as
| Wiki Markup |
|---|
{doc://display/DOC/Working with Labels Overview}Labels{doc} |
) to indicate the status of their corresponding checker in Compass Rose:
Tag | Meaning |
|---|---|
ROSE catches all violations | |
ROSE catches some violations | |
ROSE could catch some or all violations, but doesn't yet. | |
ROSE doesn't catch violations, but will soon, | |
These rules can't be checked automatically. | |
These rules could be checked automatically in theory, but not by ROSE. | |
ROSE could check these rules if it recognized macro usage. | |
ROSE could check these rules if it operated on multiple files at once. | |
ROSE could enforce this rule, but could not avoid catching some false positives. |
At this point, all rules should have one of these tags. That is, they should be completely or partially checked by ROSE, or they should be marked 'rose-possible', in that we will try to check them with ROSE, or they should have one of the nonapplicable tags indicating we don't think they can be checked with ROSE.
...
It might also be worth giving these another look
The following rule in the array section needs to be written:
ARR36-C. Do not subtract or compare two pointers that do not refer to the same array -started cjohns 4/8
cjohns: this looks done, can you verify and remove from TODO? or if more needs to be done, can you leave it as a comment? thx - alexv 4/17
The following rule needs to be completed.
ARR37-C. Do not add or subtract an integer to a pointer to a non-array object -started cjohns 4/8
cjohns: this looks done, can you verify and remove from TODO? or if more needs to be done, can you leave it as a comment? thx - alexv 4/17
For FIO39-C. Do not read in from a stream directly following output to that stream Can we rewrite the NCCE and compliant solution as a function or use another mechanism so we don't need to specify the name of the device. Unfortunately device names such as "/dev/device2" appear to be OS specific. Perhaps check this section for other instances of this problem as well.
The Risk Assessment Summary tables for each section need to be updated (they are out of date with the actual rules). - I got as far as EXP07, which still has the risk assessment for EXP10
i went through on 4/15 and checked to make sure the section tables matched the rules... are we confident that the risk summaries in the rules are correct? Only one missing and it is FLP02 -alexv 4/17
The forward backward navigation links between sections need to be checked and fixed.
Rule/Recommendation about trap representations
Rule/Recommendation about floating point exceptions
- what in particular should be written about these? should this go under Signals b/c of SIGFPE or under FLP02 as that is already started? - alexv 4/15
In all the rules, replace hard-wired 'magic' numbers with enums, as per DCL06-A
So take examples like:
| Code Block |
|---|
char buff[50];
|
and change them to:
| Code Block |
|---|
enum {buff_max = 50};
char buff[buff_max];
|
In all the rules' code samples that declare functions, make sure that parameters that are not changed in the function are marked const.
I've looked at some of the C rules and recommendations, and here are my
recommendations 
for copying them across to C++.
DCL05-A - OK more-or-less as is.
DCL06-A - OK more-or-less as is.
DCL07-A - needs rethinking for C++.
DCL09-A - not appropriate for C++ because of ERR00-A.
DCL10-A - needs some reworking for C++ (note that ISO/IEC 14882-2003
does not use the term "variadic function").
DCL11-A - ditto.
DCL12-A - perhaps needs reworking for C++.
DCL30-C - needs reworking for C++.
DCL32-C - what are the C++ requirements on identifier length?
DCL33-C - not applicable?
DCL34-C - OK more-or-less as is.
DCL35-C - OK more-or-less as is, but need to change printf's in CS.
DCL36-C - needs reworking for C++.
EXP00-A - OK more-or-less as is.
EXP01-A - needs different examples.
EXP03-A - needs different examples.
EXP04-A - OK more-or-less as is.
EXP07-A - needs rethinking for C++.
EXP08-A - perhaps already covered by OBJ30-C.
EXP09-A - OK more-or-less as is.
EXP34-C - perhaps covered by DAN34-C.
EXP35-C - this appears to require some rethinking anyway.
EXP36-C - needs some thought for C++.
INT00-A - needs reworking for C++.
INT07-A - needs reworking for C++.
INT30-C - needs reworking for C++.
INT35-C - needs reworking for C++.
INT37-C - needs reworking for C++.
That's as far as I got.
By "OK more-or-less as is" I mean that it can be copied over as it is
but the references to C and the C Standard clearly must be changed to
C++.
When you copy this rule over to the C++ side:
FIO34-C. Use int to capture the return value of character IO functions
Be sure to add something about istream::get() which return int values, not char values.
...