Cyber Resilience

CWE · MITRE source

CWE-364Signal Handler Race Condition

Abstraction: Base · CVEs in our corpus: 20

The product uses a signal handler that introduces a race condition.

Race conditions frequently occur in signal handlers, since signal handlers support asynchronous actions. These race conditions have a variety of root causes and symptoms. Attackers may be able to exploit a signal handler race condition to cause the product state to be corrupted, possibly leading to a denial of service or even code execution. These issues occur when non-reentrant functions, or state-sensitive actions occur in the signal handler, where they may be called at any time. These behaviors can violate assumptions being made by the "regular" code that is interrupted, or by other signal handlers that may also be invoked. If these functions are called at an inopportune moment - such as while a non-reentrant function is already running - memory corruption could occur that may be exploitable for code execution. Another signal race condition commonly found occurs when free is called within a signal handler, resulting in a double free and therefore a write-what-where condition. Even if a given pointer is set to NULL after it has been freed, a race condition still exists between the time the memory was freed and the pointer was set to NULL. This is especially problematic if the same signal handler has been set for more than one signal -- since it means that the signal handler itself may be reentered. There are several known behaviors related to signal handlers that have received the label of "signal handler race condition": Signal handler vulnerabilities are often classified based on the absence of a specific protection mechanism, although this style of classification is discouraged in CWE because programmers often have a choice of several different mechanisms for addressing the weakness. Such protection mechanisms may preserve exclusivity of access to the shared resource, and behavioral atomicity for the relevant code:

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 · 1 mapping(s) from 1 framework(s): ATT&CK 1 (mostly)

See the full cumulative-coverage rollup →

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-2024-63878.08.10.99512024-07-01
CVE-2024-64096.07.00.27932024-07-08
CVE-2023-12855.57.50.00692023-04-14
CVE-2024-75895.58.10.02042024-08-12
CVE-2026-4684 UPD5.57.50.00352026-03-24
CVE-2026-34771 UPD5.57.50.00292026-04-04
CVE-2026-31474 UPD5.57.80.00102026-04-22
CVE-2026-24792 UPD5.58.10.00432026-05-19
CVE-2026-46090 UPD5.57.80.00102026-05-27
CVE-2026-52910 UPD5.57.80.00102026-06-19
CVE-2026-531855.57.80.00102026-06-25
CVE-1999-00353.55.40.00811997-05-29
CVE-2019-38053.54.70.00192019-05-03
CVE-2020-143173.55.50.00192021-06-02
CVE-2023-56763.54.10.00412023-11-15
CVE-2025-4598 UPD3.54.70.00642025-05-30
CVE-2025-530923.56.50.00262025-10-16
CVE-2026-27766 UPD3.55.50.00102026-05-19
CVE-2026-42002 UPD3.55.90.00262026-05-21
CVE-2026-33565 UPD1.53.30.00092026-05-19