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
Go

Go static code analysis

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

  • All rules 70
  • Vulnerability20
  • Bug7
  • Security Hotspot14
  • Code Smell29
 
Tags
    Impact
      Clean code attribute
        1. Credentials should not be hard-coded

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

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

           Vulnerability
        4. Cipher algorithms should be robust

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

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

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

           Vulnerability
        8. Passwords should not be stored in plaintext or with a fast hashing algorithm

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

           Vulnerability
        10. Logging should not be vulnerable to injection attacks

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

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

           Vulnerability
        13. Cryptographic keys should be robust

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

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

           Vulnerability
        16. Cipher Block Chaining IVs should be unpredictable

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

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

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

           Vulnerability
        20. Password hashing functions should use an unpredictable salt

           Vulnerability

        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

        © 2008-2025 SonarSource SA. All rights reserved.

        Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Terms of Use