What CVEs are caused by CWE-362?

785 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-362, including CVE-2021-21166, CVE-2020-6820, CVE-2023-36884. 7 are listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.

Is CWE-362 actively exploited?

Yes. 7 CWE-362 vulnerabilities are in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws, out of 785 recorded CVEs.

Class weakness

Draft

CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

Also known as: Race Condition

The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.

Last updated May 1, 2026

785

Recorded CVEs

With this primary weakness

KEVs

In the CISA KEV catalog

Medium

Likelihood of exploit

Per MITRE

Class

Abstraction

MITRE classification

Overview

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc. A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related: Exclusivity - the code sequence is given exclusive access to the shared resource, i.e., no other code sequence can modify properties of the shared resource before the original sequence has completed execution. Atomicity - the code sequence is behaviorally atomic, i.e., no other thread or process can concurrently execute the same sequence of instructions (or a subset) against the same resource. A race condition exists when an "interfering code sequence" can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity. The interfering code sequence could be "trusted" or "untrusted." A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

Real-world CVEs

785 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-362 (Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')), including 7 in CISA's KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) catalog. KEVs are shown first. 252 new CWE-362 CVEs have been recorded so far in 2026 (207 in 2025).

Showing 12 of 785 recorded CWE-362 CVEs. Track new ones as they are published and get AI-written analysis and fixes.

Monitor CWE-362 vulnerabilities

Common consequences

What can happen when CWE-362 is exploited.

DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory), DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)

Affects: Availability

When a race condition makes it possible to bypass a resource cleanup routine or trigger multiple initialization routines, it may lead to resource exhaustion.

DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Instability

Affects: Availability

When a race condition allows multiple control flows to access a resource simultaneously, it might lead the product(s) into unexpected states, possibly resulting in a crash.

Read Files or Directories, Read Application Data

Affects: Confidentiality, Integrity

When a race condition is combined with predictable resource names and loose permissions, it may be possible for an attacker to overwrite or access confidential data (CWE-59).

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism

Affects: Access Control

This can have security implications when the expected synchronization is in security-critical code, such as recording whether a user is authenticated or modifying important state information that should not be influenced by an outsider.

How it happens

When it is introduced

Typically introduced during these phases of the software lifecycle.

Architecture and Design

Implementation

Applies to

Languages

C (Sometimes)

C++ (Sometimes)

Java (Sometimes)

Technologies

Mobile

ICS/OT

How to prevent it

Practical mitigations for CWE-362, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.

Architecture and Design

In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.

Architecture and Design

Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.

Architecture and Design

Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.

Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

Implementation

When using multithreading and operating on shared variables, only use thread-safe functions.

Implementation

Use atomic operations on shared variables. Be wary of innocent-looking constructs such as "x++". This may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read, followed by a computation, followed by a write.

Implementation

Use a mutex if available, but be sure to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-412.

Implementation

Avoid double-checked locking (CWE-609) and other implementation errors that arise when trying to avoid the overhead of synchronization.

Implementation

Disable interrupts or signals over critical parts of the code, but also make sure that the code does not go into a large or infinite loop.

Implementation

Use the volatile type modifier for critical variables to avoid unexpected compiler optimization or reordering. This does not necessarily solve the synchronization problem, but it can help.

Architecture and Design

Operation

Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

How to detect it

Black Box

Black box methods may be able to identify evidence of race conditions via methods such as multiple simultaneous connections, which may cause the software to become instable or crash. However, race conditions with very narrow timing windows would not be detectable.

White Box

Common idioms are detectable in white box analysis, such as time-of-check-time-of-use (TOCTOU) file operations (CWE-367), or double-checked locking (CWE-609).

Automated Dynamic Analysis

This weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

Race conditions may be detected with a stress-test by calling the software simultaneously from a large number of threads or processes, and look for evidence of any unexpected behavior.

Insert breakpoints or delays in between relevant code statements to artificially expand the race window so that it will be easier to detect.

Effectiveness: Moderate