[Precogs AI] Auto-Fix: 20 vulnerabilities in 17 files#24
Open
sameer6pre wants to merge 17 commits into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Precogs Auto-Fix — 20 Vulnerabilities Fixed
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_20/Person.cppExplanation:
The code repeatedly calls system("cls") and system("pause") to clear the screen and wait for user input. Calling system() invokes the platform shell (e.g., cmd.exe on Windows). If an attacker can influence environment variables (COMSPEC), the PATH, or the current working directory for the process, they may cause system() to execute attacker-controlled code instead of the intended internal shell commands. Although the literal strings are constant, system() is still a risky sink because how the system locates and invokes the shell can be influenced externally, enabling arbitrary command execution or privilege escalation. There is no sanitization or safer API usage; the program runs system() directly.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_02/01_temperature_converter.cppExplanation:
The program uses operator>> (cin >> temp; cin >> unit;) to read user input into variables without checking whether extraction succeeded or validating the content. If a non-numeric string is provided for the temperature, extraction into 'temp' fails, leaving 'temp' uninitialized (undefined value) and setting the stream failbit. Subsequent arithmetic using 'temp' yields undefined behavior (incorrect output, crashes) and the program may also skip or mis-handle the unit read because the stream is in a failed state. Similarly, 'unit' is compared only to uppercase 'C' or 'F' so lowercase input or additional characters behave unexpectedly. This is an input validation problem (CWE-20) that can lead to incorrect conversions, crashes (availability impact), or misleading outputs (integrity impact).
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_02/06_leap_year.cppExplanation:
The program reads user input directly into an int variable using operator>> (cin >> year) without validating the extraction result or the contents. If a user supplies non-numeric input (e.g., "abc"), the stream extraction fails, the stream's failbit is set, and 'year' remains uninitialized (or retains a previous value) which is then used in modulo operations. This can cause undefined behavior, unpredictable output, or a crash. Additionally, the program calls system("pause"), which is a platform-specific call that executes a shell command; while it's used here with a static string (so not direct injection), using system() is a risky practice and should be avoided when unnecessary.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_02/04_vowel_consonant.cppExplanation:
The program calls system("pause") which invokes the host operating system's command processor to execute the literal command "pause". Calling system() is dangerous because it executes a shell command and relies on external environment/name resolution. Even when a constant string is supplied, an attacker can influence the executed binary (for example by manipulating the process PATH or placing a malicious executable named 'pause' earlier in the search path) or exploit other environment-based behaviors. Using system() is also non-portable and can lead to unexpected execution of arbitrary code.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_02/03_negative_positive.cppExplanation:
The code calls system("pause"). Calls to system() execute a command through the OS command interpreter (e.g. /bin/sh -c on POSIX or cmd.exe /c on Windows). Even though the literal string is constant, an attacker can influence what gets executed by controlling the execution environment (for example by providing a malicious executable named 'pause' earlier in PATH, or manipulating other environment aspects on some platforms). Using system() is inherently risky because it delegates execution to the shell and can lead to arbitrary code execution if the shell resolves a malicious program or if the command string were ever changed to include user data. There is no sanitization or validation, and the program uses system() solely to pause — a safer, portable alternative (e.g., std::cin.get()) exists.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_02/05_largest_number.cppExplanation:
Calling system("pause") invokes the OS command processor to locate and execute the program named 'pause'. The search for the executable follows the system PATH (and current working directory on some platforms). An attacker who can influence the working directory or place a malicious executable earlier in the PATH can cause an unintended program to be executed, leading to arbitrary code execution. Using system() is also generally unsafe and non-portable.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_02/02_odd_even.cppExplanation:
The program declares an automatic local variable 'a' but does not initialize it. It then attempts to read user input via 'cin >> a'. If the extraction fails (for example the user supplies non-numeric input), the stream enters a failed state and 'a' remains uninitialized. The code proceeds to use 'a' in the modulo operation (a % 2) leading to undefined behavior which can cause incorrect results, crashes, or other unpredictable behavior. There is no validation of 'cin' success or sanitization of the input.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_05/Source.cppExplanation:
The area(float radius) function takes a floating-point parameter and immediately uses it in pow(radius, 2) and arithmetic without validating that the value is finite and positive. If radius is NaN, +Inf, -Inf, or an extremely large value, the calculation yields NaN/Inf or otherwise incorrect results. Because the function performs no checks, these invalid values propagate to callers and could lead to incorrect program behavior or downstream logic faults. Additionally, intermediate calculations use double-returning math functions but store results in float without checking for overflow or precision loss.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_05/Source1.cppExplanation:
The program reads two integers directly from standard input using 'cin >> a >> b' without validating the input or initializing the variables. If non-numeric input is supplied (or input extraction fails for any reason), the stream enters a fail state and the variables may remain uninitialized (indeterminate). Using uninitialized automatic variables (when extraction fails) is undefined behavior and can lead to information disclosure (stack contents), incorrect logic, or crashes. There is no input sanitization, no error handling for stream failures, and no recovery path, so an attacker or malformed input can trigger undefined behavior.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_05/Source3.cppExplanation:
The function qwerty(double n, ...) accepts a user-controlled parameter n and uses it directly as the upper bound of an integer loop (for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) ). There is no validation of n (size, sign, finiteness) or limiting of iterations. If an attacker supplies a very large value for n (or a non-finite value), the loop can run for an excessively long time consuming CPU, and intermediate calculations (factorial, pow(i,i)) will quickly exceed representable floating-point ranges producing Inf/NaN or causing the program to hang/terminate unexpectedly. This is a classic uncontrolled resource consumption and numeric overflow problem that can lead to Denial of Service or unpredictable results.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_05/Source3.cppExplanation:
The program calls system("pause"); which invokes the host shell to execute the command. Even though the command string here is a literal, using system() is risky: behavior differs across platforms, and an attacker who can influence the execution environment (e.g., working directory, PATH, or supply an executable named 'pause') might cause unintended executables to be run. In addition, system() can introduce platform-dependent side effects and unnecessarily escalates privileges for command execution. Using a direct, portable, library-based approach to pause/interaction is safer.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_05/Source2.cppExplanation:
The function converting1 performs arithmetic on the three double parameters without validating that they are finite numbers or within expected ranges (e.g. minutes and seconds normally in [0,60)). If callers pass very large values or non-finite values (NaN/INF) the arithmetic can produce INF/NaN or silently overflow/underflow, producing incorrect results that may propagate to other logic or output. There is also no normalization (e.g. converting seconds>=60 into extra minutes), which can lead to surprising results for out-of-range minute/second inputs.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_05/Source2.cppExplanation:
The code reads three doubles from standard input using operator>> but does not verify that each extraction succeeded. If the user provides non-numeric input (e.g. 'abc') the stream extraction fails, the stream's failbit is set, and the target variable remains uninitialized (indeterminate). The program then uses those uninitialized variables in a conditional and passes them to converting1, leading to undefined behavior, which can be exploited to cause incorrect outputs or crashes.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Project_E-Commerce_App_V2.0/main.cppExplanation:
The function prints the user's password (Parol_Memory) directly to the console when the user requests information ('i' or 'I'). Displaying plaintext credentials in application output is a direct information disclosure of sensitive data. An attacker with console access (local attacker, shoulder-surfing, or a user with brief physical access) can obtain the password and use it for account takeover or lateral movement. There is no sanitization, masking, or access control before showing the secret.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Project_E-Commerce_App_V2.0/main.cppExplanation:
The function opens a file named "User_Info.txt" and reads user records line-by-line. It directly outputs the 'Password' field (stored in the file) to the console in plaintext. This both implies passwords are stored in cleartext on disk and also that the program leaks them to any console/terminal observer. The root cause: sensitive credentials are persisted and displayed without any protection (no hashing, encryption, access control, or redaction). An attacker with access to the file or who can observe program output can obtain user passwords and attempt account takeover or reuse across other services. The function also uses an imprecise EOF loop (while(in)) with multiple getline calls without checking the success of each read, which can result in printing incomplete or empty records; however the primary security risk is exposure of plaintext credentials.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_04/Source.cppExplanation:
The program calls system("pause"); which executes a shell/command interpreter to run the string. Using system() for invoking commands is dangerous because if an attacker can influence the environment (PATH, current working directory, or the command string) they can cause execution of arbitrary binaries or commands. Even though this call uses a constant string, use of system() is a risky pattern (CWE-78) and can be abused on platforms where an attacker can control the PATH or inject an executable/script named 'pause' earlier in PATH/CWD. Additionally, system() spawns a shell which increases attack surface and may have side effects (locale/encoding issues, signal handling). Replace system() with a safe, platform-independent method to wait for user input (for example, using std::cin) so no external process is invoked.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_04/Source4.cppExplanation:
The program calls system("pause"). The system() function hands the provided string to the host environment's command interpreter (e.g., cmd.exe on Windows or /bin/sh on POSIX) for execution. Even though the string here is a constant literal, using system() is dangerous because it invokes a shell and can be influenced by the execution environment (environment variables such as COMSPEC on Windows or manipulated search paths, or other OS-level controls). This can allow an attacker (who can influence the environment or execution context) to cause arbitrary code execution. Additionally, system() is non-portable and unnecessary for pausing console programs; safer alternatives (reading from stdin) avoid invoking a shell altogether.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_04/Source1.cppExplanation:
The program calls system("pause"). Calls to system() invoke the operating system command processor to execute a string as a command. Even when the command string is a literal, an attacker may influence which program gets executed by manipulating environment variables (e.g., PATH, COMSPEC on Windows) or by placing a malicious executable earlier in the PATH. Using system() is unnecessary here for pausing the console and introduces the risk of arbitrary OS-level code execution. Safer alternatives (e.g., using standard input calls) avoid invoking the shell and do not depend on external executables.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_04/Source3.cppExplanation:
The code calls system("pause"). Calls to system() invoke the OS command processor to execute the provided string. Even though the current code uses a fixed string literal, use of system() is dangerous because if the code is later changed to accept or concatenate user-controlled data into the command string, it creates a direct OS command injection path (CWE-78). Additionally, system("pause") is non-portable (Windows-only) and can be considered undesirable in production code. The root cause is relying on the shell to perform program flow control instead of using safe, language-level constructs to wait for input or terminate. No input sanitization exists (none needed for a constant, but none would be present for user input).
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
Vulnerability Details
cpp-programming/Lab_04/Source2.cppExplanation:
The function calls system("pause"), which invokes the host environment's command interpreter. Calling system() is unsafe: it relies on an external shell and may lead to command injection if any part of its argument ever becomes influenced by untrusted input. Even when the current argument is a constant, using system() is non-portable and creates unnecessary reliance on an external interpreter, increasing attack surface and potential for misuse in future changes (e.g., if the argument becomes dynamic). The root cause is use of an unsafe API (system) instead of safe, in-process alternatives to wait for user input or perform the intended action.
Please review and address the issue accordingly.
This PR was auto-generated by Precogs AI. Review the changes and verify CI results before merging.