The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

What CVEs are caused by CWE-190?

1,245 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-190, including CVE-2023-33107, CVE-2023-6345, CVE-2023-2136. 20 are listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

How is CWE-190 detected?

Automated Static Analysis: This weakness can often be detected using automated static analysis tools. Many modern tools use data flow analysis or constraint-based techniques to minimize the number of false positives.

What are the consequences of CWE-190?

Exploiting CWE-190 can lead to: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Instability, Modify Memory, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Bypass Protection Mechanism.

Is CWE-190 actively exploited?

Yes. 20 CWE-190 vulnerabilities are in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws, out of 1,245 recorded CVEs.

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

RadicalNotion.AI

How to prevent it

Practical mitigations for CWE-190, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.

Requirements

Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.

Requirements

Language Selection

Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.

Architecture and Design

Libraries or Frameworks

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].

Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences.

Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]

Implementation

Input Validation

Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.

Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.

Implementation

Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7]

Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.

Architecture and Design

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Implementation

Compilation or Build Hardening

Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

Code examples

Illustrative examples from MITRE showing how the weakness appears in code.

The following image processing code allocates a table for images.

Vulnerable example

img_t table_ptr; /*struct containing img data, 10kB each*/

This code intends to allocate a table of size num_imgs, however as num_imgs grows large, the calculation determining the size of the list will eventually overflow (CWE-190). This will result in a very small list to be allocated instead. If the subsequent code operates on the list as if it were num_imgs long, it may result in many types of out-of-bounds problems (CWE-119).

The following code excerpt from OpenSSH 3.3 demonstrates a classic case of integer overflow:

Vulnerable example

nresp = packet_get_int();

If nresp has the value 1073741824 and sizeof(char*) has its typical value of 4, then the result of the operation nresp*sizeof(char*) overflows, and the argument to xmalloc() will be 0. Most malloc() implementations will happily allocate a 0-byte buffer, causing the subsequent loop iterations to overflow the heap buffer response.

Integer overflows can be complicated and difficult to detect. The following example is an attempt to show how an integer overflow may lead to undefined looping behavior:

Vulnerable example

short int bytesRec = 0;

In the above case, it is entirely possible that bytesRec may overflow, continuously creating a lower number than MAXGET and also overwriting the first MAXGET-1 bytes of buf.

In this example the method determineFirstQuarterRevenue is used to determine the first quarter revenue for an accounting/business application. The method retrieves the monthly sales totals for the first three months of the year, calculates the first quarter sales totals from the monthly sales totals, calculates the first quarter revenue based on the first quarter sales, and finally saves the first quarter revenue results to the database.

Vulnerable example

#define JAN 1

Illustrative examples

Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.

CVE-2025-27363
CISA KEV
— Font rendering library does not properly handle assigning a signed short value to an unsigned long (CWE-195), leading to an integer wraparound (CWE-190), causing too small of a buffer (CWE-131), leading to an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787).
CVE-2021-30860
CISA KEV
— Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) leads to integer overflow (CWE-190) in mobile OS, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2021-30663
CISA KEV
— Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) leads to integer overflow (CWE-190) in mobile OS, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
CVE-2025-46687 — Chain: Javascript engine code does not perform a length check (CWE-1284) leading to integer overflow (CWE-190) causing allocation of smaller buffer than expected (CWE-131) resulting in a heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122)
CVE-2021-43537 — Chain: in a web browser, an unsigned 64-bit integer is forcibly cast to a 32-bit integer (CWE-681) and potentially leading to an integer overflow (CWE-190). If an integer overflow occurs, this can cause heap memory corruption (CWE-122)
CVE-2019-19911 — Chain: Python library does not limit the resources used to process images that specify a very large number of bands (CWE-1284), leading to excessive memory consumption (CWE-789) or an integer overflow (CWE-190).
CVE-2022-0545 — Chain: 3D renderer has an integer overflow (CWE-190) leading to write-what-where condition (CWE-123) using a crafted image.
CVE-2018-10887 — Chain: unexpected sign extension (CWE-194) leads to integer overflow (CWE-190), causing an out-of-bounds read (CWE-125)
CVE-2019-1010006 — Chain: compiler optimization (CWE-733) removes or modifies code used to detect integer overflow (CWE-190), allowing out-of-bounds write (CWE-787).
CVE-2010-1866 — Chain: integer overflow (CWE-190) causes a negative signed value, which later bypasses a maximum-only check (CWE-839), leading to heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122).
CVE-2010-2753 — Chain: integer overflow leads to use-after-free
CVE-2005-1513 — Chain: integer overflow in securely-coded mail program leads to buffer overflow. In 2005, this was regarded as unrealistic to exploit, but in 2020, it was rediscovered to be easier to exploit due to evolutions of the technology.
CVE-2002-0391 — Integer overflow via a large number of arguments.
CVE-2002-0639 — Integer overflow in OpenSSH as listed in the demonstrative examples.
CVE-2005-1141 — Image with large width and height leads to integer overflow.
CVE-2005-0102 — Length value of -1 leads to allocation of 0 bytes and resultant heap overflow.
CVE-2004-2013 — Length value of -1 leads to allocation of 0 bytes and resultant heap overflow.
CVE-2017-1000121 — chain: unchecked message size metadata allows integer overflow (CWE-190) leading to buffer overflow (CWE-119).
CVE-2013-1591 — Chain: an integer overflow (CWE-190) in the image size calculation causes an infinite loop (CWE-835) which sequentially allocates buffers without limits (CWE-1325) until the stack is full.

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

Overview

Real-world CVEs

Common consequences

How it happens

When it is introduced

Applies to

How to prevent it

How to detect it

Automated Static Analysis

Black Box

Manual Analysis

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

Architecture or Design Review

Code examples

Illustrative examples

Terminology & mappings

Alternate terms

Mapped taxonomies

Attack patterns

Frequently asked questions

References

Stay ahead of CWE-190

Overview

Real-world CVEs

Common consequences

How it happens

When it is introduced

Applies to

How to prevent it

How to detect it

Automated Static Analysis

Black Box

Manual Analysis

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

Architecture or Design Review

Code examples

Illustrative examples

Related weaknesses

Parent

Child

Peer

Can precede

Terminology & mappings

Alternate terms

Mapped taxonomies

Attack patterns

Frequently asked questions

References

Stay ahead of CWE-190