CWE-1250: Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State
The product has or supports multiple distributed components or sub-systems that are each required to keep their own local copy of shared data - such as state or cache - but the product does not ensure that all local copies remain consistent with each other.
How it's found
Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State is typically found by tracing untrusted input from where it enters the system to the point where it is used without the check or neutralization this weakness describes, combining manual code review with dynamic testing.
In highly distributed environments, or on systems with distinct physical components that operate independently, there is often a need for each component to store and update its own local copy of key data such as state or cache, so that all components have the same "view" of the overall system and operate in a coordinated fashion. For example, users of a social media service or a massively multiplayer online game might be using their own personal computers while also interacting with different physical hosts in a globally distributed service, but all participants must be able to have the same "view" of the world. Alternately, a processor's Memory Management Unit (MMU) might have "shadow" MMUs to distribute its workload, and all shadow MMUs are expected to have the same accessible ranges of memory. In such environments, it becomes critical for the product to ensure that this "shared state" is consistently modified across all distributed systems. If state is not consistently maintained across all systems, then critical transactions might take place out of order, or some users might not get the same data as other users. When this inconsistency affects correctness of operations, it can introduce vulnerabilities in mechanisms that depend on consistent state.
Consequences
- Unexpected State: One or more of the components/sub-systems could assume that the state is different than it actually is.
Where this fits in a TurboPentest engagement
This weakness is not covered by the automated black-box pentest. IntegSec pentesters cover it in a manual engagement.
Frequently asked questions
What is CWE-1250?
The product has or supports multiple distributed components or sub-systems that are each required to keep their own local copy of shared data - such as state or cache - but the product does not ensure that all local copies remain consistent with each other.
How do you find Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State?
Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State is typically found by tracing untrusted input from where it enters the system to the point where it is used without the check or neutralization this weakness describes, combining manual code review with dynamic testing.
What is the impact of CWE-1250?
Unexpected State: One or more of the components/sub-systems could assume that the state is different than it actually is.
Does TurboPentest test for Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State?
This weakness is not covered by the automated black-box pentest. IntegSec pentesters cover it in a manual engagement.
Related CWEs
Written and reviewed by
Michel Chamberland - Founder & CEO, IntegSec
CISSP, OSCP, OSCE, CEH, GIAC, CCSK · 20+ years in offensive security
Michel has spent 20+ years on offensive security teams including IBM X-Force Red and Trustwave SpiderLabs, leading penetration tests, red team engagements, and breach response for Fortune 500 customers. He is the founder of IntegSec and the architect of TurboPentest.
Find these issues before an attacker does
TurboPentest runs an agentic AI pentest against your target and reports findings with proof, from $99 per target.
Start a pentest