CWE · MITRE source
CWE-252Unchecked Return Value
The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
Two common programmer assumptions are "this function call can never fail" and "it doesn't matter if this function call fails". If an attacker can force the function to fail or otherwise return a value that is not expected, then the subsequent program logic could lead to a vulnerability, because the product is not in a state that the programmer assumes. For example, if the program calls a function to drop privileges but does not check the return code to ensure that privileges were successfully dropped, then the program will continue to operate with the higher privileges.
Last updated: 04 July 2026 00:28 UTC
Cumulative inbound coverage
How completely the frameworks we cross-walk collectively cover this — the verdict is the strongest single mapping (overlapping partials are not summed); breadth shows the corroboration behind it.
Collective: mostly · 2 mapping(s) from 2 framework(s): OWASP-Web 1 (mostly) · ATT&CK 1 (partial)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A10:2025 Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
MITRE ATT&CK techniques this weakness enables
Our own two-way CWE↔ATT&CK cross-walk — a direct mapping with no public source (the CWE→CAPEC→ATT&CK chain leaves most top weaknesses, incl. XSS and SQLi, mapped to nothing). Drafted by Grok and spot-checked by Claude Opus 4.8.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial).
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2005-4360 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 0.8673 | 2005-12-20 |
CVE-2007-3798 | 8.0 | 9.8 | 0.7039 | 2007-07-16 |
CVE-2010-0211 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.2924 | 2010-07-28 |
CVE-2019-15900 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0211 | 2019-10-18 |
CVE-1999-0199 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0240 | 2020-10-06 |
CVE-2021-26955 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0173 | 2021-02-09 |
CVE-2021-38171 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0241 | 2021-08-21 |
CVE-2022-23806 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0301 | 2022-02-11 |
CVE-2022-25718 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0041 | 2022-10-19 |
CVE-2024-50306 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0158 | 2024-11-14 |
CVE-2025-66565 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0040 | 2025-12-09 |
CVE-2002-1372 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0297 | 2002-12-26 |
CVE-2009-0265 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0247 | 2009-01-26 |
CVE-2017-6964 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0047 | 2017-03-28 |
CVE-2017-0720 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0138 | 2017-08-09 |
CVE-2018-14367 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0332 | 2018-07-19 |
CVE-2018-14622 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0386 | 2018-08-30 |
CVE-2018-20216 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0388 | 2018-12-20 |
CVE-2019-10902 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0466 | 2019-04-09 |
CVE-2019-12107 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0303 | 2019-05-15 |
CVE-2019-15942 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0202 | 2019-09-05 |
CVE-2019-17178 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0258 | 2019-10-04 |
CVE-2020-6078 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0301 | 2020-03-24 |
CVE-2020-6152 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0194 | 2020-09-01 |
CVE-2020-17533 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0365 | 2020-12-29 |