SonarSource Rules
  • Products

    In-IDE

    Code Quality and Security in your IDE with SonarQube Ide

    IDE extension that lets you fix coding issues before they exist!

    Discover SonarQube for IDE

    SaaS

    Code Quality and Security in the cloud with SonarQube Cloud

    Setup is effortless and analysis is automatic for most languages

    Discover SonarQube Cloud

    Self-Hosted

    Code Quality and Security Self-Hosted with SonarQube Server

    Fast, accurate analysis; enterprise scalability

    Discover SonarQube Server
  • SecretsSecrets
  • ABAPABAP
  • AnsibleAnsible
  • ApexApex
  • AzureResourceManagerAzureResourceManager
  • CC
  • C#C#
  • C++C++
  • CloudFormationCloudFormation
  • COBOLCOBOL
  • CSSCSS
  • DartDart
  • DockerDocker
  • FlexFlex
  • GitHub ActionsGitHub Actions
  • GoGo
  • HTMLHTML
  • JavaJava
  • JavaScriptJavaScript
  • JSONJSON
  • JCLJCL
  • KotlinKotlin
  • KubernetesKubernetes
  • Objective CObjective C
  • PHPPHP
  • PL/IPL/I
  • PL/SQLPL/SQL
  • PythonPython
  • RPGRPG
  • RubyRuby
  • RustRust
  • ScalaScala
  • SwiftSwift
  • TerraformTerraform
  • TextText
  • TypeScriptTypeScript
  • T-SQLT-SQL
  • VB.NETVB.NET
  • VB6VB6
  • XMLXML
  • YAMLYAML
C#

C# static code analysis

Unique rules to find Bugs, Vulnerabilities, Security Hotspots, and Code Smells in your C# code

  • All rules 493
  • Vulnerability46
  • Bug88
  • Security Hotspot24
  • Code Smell335

  • Quick Fix 61
Filtered: 26 rules found
injection
    Impact
      Clean code attribute
        1. Server-side requests should not be vulnerable to traversing attacks

           Vulnerability
        2. Stack traces should not be disclosed

           Vulnerability
        3. Loop boundaries should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        4. Connection strings should not be vulnerable to injections attacks

           Vulnerability
        5. Memory allocations should not be vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks

           Vulnerability
        6. Accessing files should not lead to filesystem oracle attacks

           Vulnerability
        7. Environment variables should not be defined from untrusted input

           Vulnerability
        8. XML operations should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        9. Constructing arguments of system commands from user input is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        10. Applications should not create session cookies from untrusted input

           Vulnerability
        11. Reflection should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        12. Extracting archives should not lead to zip slip vulnerabilities

           Vulnerability
        13. OS commands should not be vulnerable to argument injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        14. Dynamic code execution should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        15. NoSQL operations should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        16. HTTP request redirections should not be open to forging attacks

           Vulnerability
        17. Logging should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        18. Server-side requests should not be vulnerable to forging attacks

           Vulnerability
        19. Deserialization should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        20. Endpoints should not be vulnerable to reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks

           Vulnerability
        21. Database queries should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        22. Regular expressions should not be vulnerable to Denial of Service attacks

           Vulnerability
        23. XPath expressions should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        24. I/O function calls should not be vulnerable to path injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        25. LDAP queries should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        26. OS commands should not be vulnerable to command injection attacks

           Vulnerability

        Loop boundaries should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

        intentionality - complete
        security
        Vulnerability
        • cwe
        • injection

        This vulnerability exposes the system to various operational overloads that can lead to either a technical denial of service and/or business disruptions.

        Why is this an issue?

        How can I fix it?

        More Info

        Loop boundary injections occur in an application when the application retrieves data from a user or a third-party service and inserts it into a loop or a function acting as a loop, without sanitizing it first.

        If an application contains a loop that is vulnerable to injections, it is exposed to attacks that target its availability where that loop is used.

        A user with malicious intent carefully performs actions whose goal is to cause the loop to run for more iterations than the developer intended, resulting in unexpected behavior or even a crash of the program.

        After creating the malicious request, the attacker can attack the servers affected by this vulnerability without relying on any prerequisites.

        What is the potential impact?

        After discovering the injection point, attackers insert data into the vulnerable field to either make the affected component inaccessible, attempt a malfunction, or read from an artifact that exceeds the developer’s intended boundaries.

        In languages that don’t enforce memory access checks, this can also lead to a buffer overflow or underflow which may result in sensitive information disclosure or remote code execution.

        Below are some real-world scenarios that illustrate some impacts of an attacker exploiting the vulnerability.

        Self Denial of service

        If the component affected by this vulnerability is not a bottleneck that acts as a single point of failure (SPOF) within the application, the denial of service might only affect the attacker who initiated it.

        Even if the denial of service has little direct impact, it can cause secondary effects in architectures that use containers and container orchestrators. It could cause unexpected container failures or resource overconsumption, for example.

        Infrastructure SPOFs

        A denial of service attack can be critical to the enterprise if it targets a SPOF component. Sometimes the SPOF is a software architecture vulnerability (such as a single component on which multiple critical components depend) or an operational vulnerability (for example, insufficient container creation capabilities or failures from containers to terminate).

        In either case, attackers aim to exploit the infrastructure weakness by sending as many malicious payloads as possible, using potentially huge offensive infrastructures.

        These threats are particularly insidious if the attacked organization does not maintain a disaster recovery plan (DRP).

          Available In:
        • SonarQube CloudDetect issues in your GitHub, Azure DevOps Services, Bitbucket Cloud, GitLab repositories
        • SonarQube ServerAnalyze code in your
          on-premise CI
          Developer Edition
          Available Since
          10.7

        © 2008-2025 SonarSource SA. All rights reserved.

        Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Terms of Use