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
  • ShellShell
  • SwiftSwift
  • TerraformTerraform
  • TextText
  • TypeScriptTypeScript
  • T-SQLT-SQL
  • VB.NETVB.NET
  • VB6VB6
  • XMLXML
  • YAMLYAML
Go

Go static code analysis

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

  • All rules 94
  • Vulnerability21
  • Bug13
  • Security Hotspot14
  • Code Smell46
 
Tags
    Impact
      Clean code attribute
        1. File existence checks followed by file creation should use atomic operations

           Vulnerability
        2. Busy waiting loops should use proper synchronization

           Bug
        3. Context should not be stored in struct fields

           Code Smell
        4. Context parameters should be reused instead of creating new background contexts

           Code Smell
        5. Package imports should be consistent and avoid redundancy

           Code Smell
        6. Variables should be used

           Code Smell
        7. Consecutive function parameters with the same type should be grouped

           Code Smell
        8. HTTP response bodies should be closed to prevent resource leaks

           Bug
        9. Deprecated "InterfaceData" method should not be used

           Bug
        10. Named types should be used instead of anonymous structs for complex nested structures

           Code Smell
        11. Use "bytes.Equal" instead of "bytes.Compare" for equality checks

           Code Smell
        12. Single-method interface names should follow Go naming conventions

           Code Smell
        13. Variables in if short statements should be used beyond just the condition

           Code Smell
        14. Context cancellation functions should be deferred

           Code Smell
        15. Blank imports should be documented to explain their purpose

           Code Smell
        16. Function and method names should not use "Get" prefix

           Code Smell
        17. Custom error types must implement "Error()" method correctly

           Bug
        18. Semicolons should not be used unnecessarily

           Code Smell
        19. Database transactions should be properly handled with rollback mechanisms

           Bug
        20. Test functions should not call "t.Fatal" from separate goroutines

           Bug
        21. Import statements should be factored into a single block

           Code Smell
        22. Functions should follow Go's explicit error handling patterns

           Code Smell
        23. Credentials should not be hard-coded

           Vulnerability
        24. Hard-coded secrets are security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        25. Constructing arguments of system commands from user input is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        26. Extracting archives should not lead to zip slip vulnerabilities

           Vulnerability
        27. JWT should be signed and verified with strong cipher algorithms

           Vulnerability
        28. Cipher algorithms should be robust

           Vulnerability
        29. Encryption algorithms should be used with secure mode and padding scheme

           Vulnerability
        30. Server hostnames should be verified during SSL/TLS connections

           Vulnerability
        31. Insecure temporary file creation methods should not be used

           Vulnerability
        32. Using publicly writable directories is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        33. Passwords should not be stored in plaintext or with a fast hashing algorithm

           Vulnerability
        34. Using clear-text protocols is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        35. HTTP request redirections should not be open to forging attacks

           Vulnerability
        36. Logging should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

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

           Vulnerability
        38. Server certificates should be verified during SSL/TLS connections

           Vulnerability
        39. Using weak hashing algorithms is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        40. Multi-line comments should not be empty

           Code Smell
        41. Delivering code in production with debug features activated is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        42. Cryptographic keys should be robust

           Vulnerability
        43. Weak SSL/TLS protocols should not be used

           Vulnerability
        44. Functions should not have identical implementations

           Code Smell
        45. Searching OS commands in PATH is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        46. All branches in a conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation

           Bug
        47. Cognitive Complexity of functions should not be too high

           Code Smell
        48. Database queries should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        49. Creating cookies without the "HttpOnly" flag is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        50. Cipher Block Chaining IVs should be unpredictable

           Vulnerability
        51. Non-existent operators like "=+" should not be used

           Bug
        52. Setting loose POSIX file permissions is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        53. Go parser failure

           Code Smell
        54. Using pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        55. Creating cookies without the "secure" flag is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        56. XPath expressions should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

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

           Vulnerability
        58. Formatting SQL queries is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        59. OS commands should not be vulnerable to command injection attacks

           Vulnerability
        60. Hard-coded credentials are security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        61. Password hashing functions should use an unpredictable salt

           Vulnerability
        62. Boolean checks should not be inverted

           Code Smell
        63. Two branches in a conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation

           Code Smell
        64. Related "if/else if" statements should not have the same condition

           Bug
        65. "switch" statements should not be nested

           Code Smell
        66. Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator

           Bug
        67. All code should be reachable

           Bug
        68. Variables should not be self-assigned

           Bug
        69. "switch" statements should not have too many "case" clauses

           Code Smell
        70. Track lack of copyright and license headers

           Code Smell
        71. Functions and methods should not have too many lines

           Code Smell
        72. Control flow statements "if", "for" and "switch" should not be nested too deeply

           Code Smell
        73. Octal values should not be used

           Code Smell
        74. Using hardcoded IP addresses is security-sensitive

           Security Hotspot
        75. "switch" statements should have "default" clauses

           Code Smell
        76. "if ... else if" constructs should end with "else" clauses

           Code Smell
        77. Statements should be on separate lines

           Code Smell
        78. String literals should not be duplicated

           Code Smell
        79. Functions should not be empty

           Code Smell
        80. Unused function parameters should be removed

           Code Smell
        81. Local variable and function parameter names should comply with a naming convention

           Code Smell
        82. "switch case" clauses should not have too many lines

           Code Smell
        83. Useless "if(true) {...}" and "if(false){...}" blocks should be removed

           Bug
        84. Track uses of "TODO" tags

           Code Smell
        85. Track uses of "FIXME" tags

           Code Smell
        86. Boolean literals should not be redundant

           Code Smell
        87. Empty statements should be removed

           Code Smell
        88. Redundant pairs of parentheses should be removed

           Code Smell
        89. Nested blocks of code should not be left empty

           Code Smell
        90. Functions should not have too many parameters

           Code Smell
        91. Expressions should not be too complex

           Code Smell
        92. Files should not have too many lines of code

           Code Smell
        93. Lines should not be too long

           Code Smell
        94. Function names should comply with a naming convention

           Code Smell

        Password hashing functions should use an unpredictable salt

        responsibility - trustworthy
        security
        Vulnerability
        • cwe

        This vulnerability increases the likelihood that attackers are able to compute the cleartext of password hashes.

        Why is this an issue?

        How can I fix it?

        More Info

        During the process of password hashing, an additional component, known as a "salt," is often integrated to bolster the overall security. This salt, acting as a defensive measure, primarily wards off certain types of attacks that leverage pre-computed tables to crack passwords.

        However, potential risks emerge when the salt is deemed insecure. This can occur when the salt is consistently the same across all users or when it is too short or predictable. In scenarios where users share the same password and salt, their password hashes will inevitably mirror each other. Similarly, a short salt heightens the probability of multiple users unintentionally having identical salts, which can potentially lead to identical password hashes. These identical hashes streamline the process for potential attackers to recover clear-text passwords. Thus, the emphasis on implementing secure, unique, and sufficiently lengthy salts in password-hashing functions is vital.

        What is the potential impact?

        Despite best efforts, even well-guarded systems might have vulnerabilities that could allow an attacker to gain access to the hashed passwords. This could be due to software vulnerabilities, insider threats, or even successful phishing attempts that give attackers the access they need.

        Once the attacker has these hashes, they will likely attempt to crack them using a couple of methods. One is brute force, which entails trying every possible combination until the correct password is found. While this can be time-consuming, having the same salt for all users or a short salt can make the task significantly easier and faster.

        If multiple users have the same password and the same salt, their password hashes would be identical. This means that if an attacker successfully cracks one hash, they have effectively cracked all identical ones, granting them access to multiple accounts at once.

        A short salt, while less critical than a shared one, still increases the odds of different users having the same salt. This might create clusters of password hashes with identical salt that can then be attacked as explained before.

        With short salts, the probability of a collision between two users' passwords and salts couple might be low depending on the salt size. The shorter the salt, the higher the collision probability. In any case, using longer, cryptographically secure salt should be preferred.

        Exceptions

        To securely store password hashes, it is a recommended to rely on key derivation functions that are computationally intensive. Examples of such functions are:

        • Argon2
        • PBKDF2
        • Scrypt
        • Bcrypt

        When they are used for password storage, using a secure, random salt is required.

        However, those functions can also be used for other purposes such as master key derivation or password-based pre-shared key generation. In those cases, the implemented cryptographic protocol might require using a fixed salt to derive keys in a deterministic way. In such cases, using a fixed salt is safe and accepted.

          Available In:
        • SonarQube IdeCatch issues on the fly,
          in your IDE
        • SonarQube CloudDetect issues in your GitHub, Azure DevOps Services, Bitbucket Cloud, GitLab repositories
        • SonarQube ServerAnalyze code in your
          on-premise CI

        © 2025 SonarSource Sàrl. All rights reserved.

        Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Terms of Use