Hubbry Logo
Dangling pointerDangling pointerMain
Open search
Dangling pointer
Community hub
Dangling pointer
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Dangling pointer
Dangling pointer
Dangling pointer
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Dangling pointer

Dangling pointers and wild pointers in computer programming are pointers that do not point to a valid object of the appropriate type. These are special cases of memory safety violations. More generally, dangling references and wild references are references that do not resolve to a valid destination.

Dangling pointers arise during object destruction, when an object that is pointed to by a given pointer is deleted or deallocated, without modifying the value of that said pointer, so that the pointer still points to the memory location of the deallocated memory. The system may reallocate the previously freed memory, and if the program then dereferences the (now) dangling pointer, unpredictable behavior may result, as the memory may now contain completely different data. If the program writes to memory referenced by a dangling pointer, a silent corruption of unrelated data may result, leading to subtle bugs that can be extremely difficult to find. If the memory has been reallocated to another process, then attempting to dereference the dangling pointer can cause segmentation faults (UNIX, Linux) or general protection faults (Windows). If the program has sufficient privileges to allow it to overwrite the bookkeeping data used by the kernel's memory allocator, the corruption can cause system instabilities. In object-oriented languages with garbage collection, dangling references are prevented by only destroying objects that are unreachable, meaning they do not have any incoming pointers; this is ensured either by tracing or reference counting. However, a finalizer may create new references to an object, requiring object resurrection to prevent a dangling reference.

Wild pointers, also called uninitialized pointers, arise when a pointer is used prior to initialization to some known state, which is possible in some programming languages. They show the same erratic behavior as dangling pointers, though they are less likely to stay undetected because many compilers will raise a warning at compile time if declared variables are accessed before being initialized.[1]

Cause of dangling pointers

[edit]

In many languages (e.g., the C programming language) deleting an object from memory explicitly or by destroying the stack frame on return does not alter associated pointers. The pointer still points to the same location in memory even though that location may now be used for other purposes.

A straightforward example is shown below: 

{
    char* dp = NULL;
    // ...
    {
        char c;
        dp = &c;
    } 
    // c falls out of scope
    // dp is now a dangling pointer
}

If the operating system is able to detect run-time references to null pointers, a solution to the above is to assign 0 (null) to dp immediately before the inner block is exited. Another solution would be to somehow guarantee dp is not used again without further initialization.

Another frequent source of dangling pointers is a jumbled combination of malloc() and free() library calls: a pointer becomes dangling when the block of memory it points to is freed. As with the previous example one way to avoid this is to make sure to reset the pointer to null after freeing its reference—as demonstrated below. 

#include <stdlib.h>

void func() {
    char* dp = (char*)malloc(sizeof(char) * 10);
    // ...
    free(dp); // dp now becomes a dangling pointer
    dp = NULL; // dp is no longer dangling
    // ... 
}

An all too common misstep is returning addresses of a stack-allocated local variable: once a called function returns, the space for these variables gets deallocated and technically they have "garbage values". 

int* func(void) {
    int num = 1234;
    // ... 
    return &num;
}

Attempts to read from the pointer may still return the correct value (1234) for a while after calling func, but any functions called thereafter may overwrite the stack storage allocated for num with other values and the pointer would no longer work correctly. If a pointer to num must be returned, num must have scope beyond the function—it might be declared as static.

Manual deallocation without dangling reference

[edit]

Antoni Kreczmar [pl] (1945–1996) has created a complete object management system which is free of dangling reference phenomenon.[2] A similar approach was proposed by Fisher and LeBlanc[3] under the name Locks-and-keys.

Cause of wild pointers

[edit]

Wild pointers are created by omitting necessary initialization prior to first use. Thus, strictly speaking, every pointer in programming languages which do not enforce initialization begins as a wild pointer.

This most often occurs due to jumping over the initialization, not by omitting it. Most compilers are able to warn about this. 

int f(int i) {
    char* dp; // dp is a wild pointer 
    static char* scp; /* scp is not a wild pointer:
                        * static variables are initialized to 0
                        * at start and retain their values from
                        * the last call afterwards.
                        * Using this feature may be considered bad
                        * style if not commented */
}

Security holes involving dangling pointers

[edit]

Like buffer-overflow bugs, dangling/wild pointer bugs frequently become security holes. For example, if the pointer is used to make a virtual function call, a different address (possibly pointing at exploit code) may be called due to the vtable pointer being overwritten. Alternatively, if the pointer is used for writing to memory, some other data structure may be corrupted. Even if the memory is only read once the pointer becomes dangling, it can lead to information leaks (if interesting data is put in the next structure allocated there) or to privilege escalation (if the now-invalid memory is used in security checks). When a dangling pointer is used after it has been freed without allocating a new chunk of memory to it, this becomes known as a "use after free" vulnerability.[4] For example, CVE-2014-1776 is a use-after-free vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 through 11[5] that was used by zero-day attacks by an advanced persistent threat.[6]

Avoiding dangling pointer errors

[edit]

In C, the simplest technique is to implement an alternative version of the free() (or alike) function which guarantees the reset of the pointer. However, this technique will not clear other pointer variables which may contain a copy of the pointer. 

#include <assert.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

// Safe version of free()
static void safeFree(void** pp) {
    // in debug mode, abort if pp is NULL
    assert(pp);
    // free(NULL) works properly, so no check is required besides the assert in debug mode
    free(*pp); // deallocate chunk, note that free(NULL) is valid
    *pp = NULL; // reset original pointer
}

int f(int i) {
    char* p = NULL;
    char* p2;
    p = (char*)malloc(1000); // get a chunk
    p2 = p; // copy the pointer
    // use the chunk here
    safeFree((void**)&p); // safety freeing; does not affect p2 variable
    safeFree((void**)&p); // this second call won't fail as p is reset to NULL
    char c = *p2; // p2 is still a dangling pointer, so this is undefined behavior.
    return i + c;
}

The alternative version can be used even to guarantee the validity of an empty pointer before calling malloc(): 

safeFree(&p); // I'm not sure if chunk has been released */
p = (char*)malloc(1000); // allocate now

These uses can be masked through #define directives to construct useful macros (a common one being #define XFREE(ptr) safeFree((void**)&(ptr))), creating something like a metalanguage or can be embedded into a tool library apart. In every case, programmers using this technique should use the safe versions in every instance where free() would be used; failing in doing so leads again to the problem. Also, this solution is limited to the scope of a single program or project, and should be properly documented.

Among more structured solutions, a popular technique to avoid dangling pointers in C++ is to use smart pointers. A smart pointer typically uses reference counting to reclaim objects. Some other techniques include the tombstones method and the locks-and-keys method.[3]

Another approach is to use the Boehm garbage collector, a conservative garbage collector that replaces standard memory allocation functions in C and C++ with a garbage collector. This approach completely eliminates dangling pointer errors by disabling frees, and reclaiming objects by garbage collection.

Another approach is to use a system such as CHERI, which stores pointers with additional metadata which may prevent invalid accesses by including lifetime information in pointers. CHERI typically requires support in the CPU to conduct these additional checks.

In languages like Java, dangling pointers cannot occur because there is no mechanism to explicitly deallocate memory. Rather, the garbage collector may deallocate memory, but only when the object is no longer reachable from any references.

In the language Rust, the type system has been extended to include also the variables lifetimes and resource acquisition is initialization. Unless one disables the features of the language, dangling pointers will be caught at compile time and reported as programming errors.

Dangling pointer detection

[edit]

To expose dangling pointer errors, one common programming technique is to set pointers to the null pointer or to an invalid address once the storage they point to has been released. When the null pointer is dereferenced (in most languages) the program will immediately terminate—there is no potential for data corruption or unpredictable behavior. This makes the underlying programming mistake easier to find and resolve. This technique does not help when there are multiple copies of the pointer.

Some debuggers will automatically overwrite and destroy data that has been freed, usually with a specific pattern, such as 0xDEADBEEF (Microsoft's Visual C/C++ debugger, for example, uses 0xCC, 0xCD or 0xDD depending on what has been freed[7]). This usually prevents the data from being reused by making it useless and also very prominent (the pattern serves to show the programmer that the memory has already been freed).

Tools such as Polyspace, TotalView, Valgrind, Mudflap,[8] AddressSanitizer, or tools based on LLVM[9] can also be used to detect uses of dangling pointers.

Other tools (SoftBound, Insure++, and CheckPointer) instrument the source code to collect and track legitimate values for pointers ("metadata") and check each pointer access against the metadata for validity.

Another strategy, when suspecting a small set of classes, is to temporarily make all their member functions virtual: after the class instance has been destructed/freed, its pointer to the Virtual Method Table is set to NULL, and any call to a member function will crash the program and it will show the guilty code in the debugger.

The ARM64 memory tagging extension (MTE) - disabled by default on Linux systems, but can be enabled on Android 16 - triggers a segmentation fault when it detects use-after-free and buffer overflow.[10][11]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Dangling pointer

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A dangling pointer is a pointer in that references a that has been deallocated or freed, rendering the pointed-to invalid and inaccessible through valid means. This concept primarily arises in languages with , such as and C++, where programmers explicitly allocate and deallocate memory using functions like malloc and free or new and delete. Dangling pointers typically occur in two common scenarios: when a pointer to dynamically allocated on the heap is not updated after deallocation, or when a pointer is returned from a function referencing a whose scope has ended, causing the to be reclaimed. For instance, if multiple pointers reference the same heap-allocated object and one is used to delete it without nullifying the others, the remaining pointers become dangling. In the former case, the pointer retains the original address despite the being available for reuse by the system, potentially leading to the pointer accessing unrelated or corrupted data. The use of a dangling pointer, known as a dereference, constitutes a use-after-free error, which triggers in the program. This can manifest as subtle bugs, such as reading stale or modified values from the location, program crashes, or severe security vulnerabilities including information leakage, , or control-flow hijacking by malicious actors. Compilers rarely detect these issues at , and the behavior may appear correct initially, complicating as small code changes can expose latent errors. For example, in web browsers like , use-after-free bugs linked to dangling pointers accounted for a significant portion of critical vulnerabilities between and 2013. To mitigate dangling pointers, best practices include setting the pointer to nullptr (or NULL) immediately after deallocation to cause a detectable dereference if accessed erroneously, rather than silent . Advanced techniques, such as runtime nullification systems that track and invalidate pointers upon memory freeing, have been proposed to enforce automatically, though they introduce performance overhead. In modern C++, smart pointers like std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr from the help prevent these issues by managing memory lifetimes automatically.

Fundamentals

Definition and Characteristics

A dangling pointer is a pointer that refers to memory that has been deallocated, such as by a call to free() or realloc() , while the pointer variable itself remains in scope and retains its value. In C++, it similarly arises when a pointer references an object after its lifetime has ended, without the pointer being updated. Key characteristics of a dangling pointer include its initial validity as a legitimate to allocated , which becomes invalid upon deallocation or lifetime expiration; the pointer's value does not change automatically, leading to potential of the for unrelated ; and any attempt to dereference or access it invokes as specified in the and standards. This issue is prevalent in languages like and that permit , where programmers must explicitly handle allocation and deallocation. The following C example demonstrates a basic dangling pointer scenario with dynamic allocation:

c

#include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); // Allocates memory and assigns address to ptr if (ptr != NULL) { *ptr = 42; // Valid write to allocated memory free(ptr); // Deallocates the memory, making ptr dangling // *ptr = 100; // Undefined behavior: access after deallocation } // ptr still holds the original address but points to invalid memory return 0; }

#include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); // Allocates memory and assigns address to ptr if (ptr != NULL) { *ptr = 42; // Valid write to allocated memory free(ptr); // Deallocates the memory, making ptr dangling // *ptr = 100; // Undefined behavior: access after deallocation } // ptr still holds the original address but points to invalid memory return 0; }

Here, after free(ptr), the memory is returned to the heap, but ptr unchangedly references it; any subsequent dereference, such as the commented line, results in undefined behavior per C Standard section 7.20.3.2. Conceptually, the state evolves as follows: Before deallocation:
  • Allocated memory block: [ valid | value = 42 ]
  • Pointer: ptr ───→ [ valid memory ]
After deallocation:
  • Memory block: [ freed / invalid ] (potentially reusable)
  • Pointer: ptr ───→ [ freed memory ] (dangling reference)
This diagram underscores how the pointer persists in pointing to now-invalid storage, risking erratic program execution upon access. Dangling pointers are often confused with , which are explicitly initialized to point to no valid location, typically represented by the value 0 or NULL. Unlike dangling pointers that reference previously allocated but now invalid , dereferencing a generally results in an immediate or process termination due to accessing an unmapped . This predictable failure behavior contrasts with dangling pointers, where dereference may succeed temporarily if the memory has been reallocated, leading to subtle rather than instant crashes. Wild pointers, also known as uninitialized pointers, differ from dangling pointers in that they hold arbitrary garbage values because they have not been assigned any valid address. While a dangling pointer starts as valid but becomes invalid after the target object's deallocation, a wild pointer never points to intended from the outset, making its dereference unpredictable and often immediately erroneous. Both can cause , but the distinction lies in their lifecycle: wild pointers lack initialization, whereas dangling pointers arise from post-invalidation persistence. Use-after-free errors represent the misuse of a dangling pointer, where the act of accessing or dereferencing the invalidated pointer constitutes the vulnerability, rather than the pointer's state alone. A dangling pointer describes the condition of the pointer after memory deallocation, but use-after-free specifically refers to the erroneous operation on it, potentially enabling exploits like if the memory is reused maliciously. This separation emphasizes that while all use-after-free instances involve dangling pointers, not all dangling pointers lead to use-after-free if never accessed post-invalidation.
Pointer Error TypeCauseSymptomsLanguages Affected
Dangling PointerDeallocation or expiration of pointed-to while pointer persistsPotential or delayed crashes if memory reused; on dereferenceC, C++, languages like (unsafe mode)
Null PointerExplicit initialization to NULL or 0Immediate or process abort on dereferenceC, C++, Java, C# (unsafe), most pointer-supporting languages
Wild PointerLack of initialization, holding garbage valuesUnpredictable reads/writes; immediate crashes or corruptionC, C++, languages without automatic pointer initialization

Causes

Memory Deallocation

In languages such as C and C++, explicit memory deallocation on the heap is a primary cause of dangling pointers. The free() function in C, or the delete operator in C++, releases dynamically allocated memory back to the system, rendering any pointers referencing that memory invalid for further access. However, these deallocation operations do not modify or nullify the pointer variables themselves, which retain their original address values. Subsequent dereferencing of such pointers results in undefined behavior, as the memory may be reused by the system for other purposes or left in an indeterminate state. Consider the following C example, which illustrates this mechanism:

c

#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main() { int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); // Allocate memory on the heap if (ptr == NULL) return 1; *ptr = 42; // Assign a value printf("Value before free: %d\n", *ptr); // Valid access: outputs 42 free(ptr); // Deallocate the memory; ptr now points to freed memory // ptr is not set to NULL, so it remains a dangling pointer // printf("Value after free: %d\n", *ptr); // Undefined behavior if uncommented return 0; }

#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main() { int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); // Allocate memory on the heap if (ptr == NULL) return 1; *ptr = 42; // Assign a value printf("Value before free: %d\n", *ptr); // Valid access: outputs 42 free(ptr); // Deallocate the memory; ptr now points to freed memory // ptr is not set to NULL, so it remains a dangling pointer // printf("Value after free: %d\n", *ptr); // Undefined behavior if uncommented return 0; }

Here, after free(ptr), the pointer ptr holds the of the deallocated block, and any attempt to read or write through it invokes , potentially leading to crashes, incorrect data, or issues. In C++, a similar issue arises with new and delete, where delete ptr; invalidates ptr without altering its value. This problem is particularly pronounced with heap deallocation, which involves programmer-controlled dynamic allocation, in contrast to automatic stack-based deallocation handled by scope rules. When multiple pointers reference the same heap-allocated —such as through assignment or passing by —deallocating via one pointer invalidates all others, amplifying the if not all are properly managed. For instance, if two pointers p1 and p2 both point to the same malloc()-ed block, calling free(p1) leaves p2 dangling, and using p2 thereafter is . Dangling pointers due to manual memory deallocation have been prevalent since the introduction of the C language in the early 1970s at Bell Labs, where pointers and explicit heap management were adopted from earlier languages like B to enable efficient system programming without garbage collection. This design choice prioritized performance and control but introduced risks inherent to low-level memory handling that persist in C and its derivatives.

Object Lifetime Expiration

In languages with scoped storage duration, such as C++, the lifetime of an automatic object—typically a local variable—begins upon its allocation and initialization and ends when the enclosing scope exits, such as at the conclusion of a function or block statement. This automatic deallocation invalidates any pointers or references that point to the object if those pointers escape the scope, resulting in dangling pointers that refer to memory no longer associated with a valid object. Unlike explicit memory deallocation on the heap, this process is implicit and managed by the compiler, tying the object's destruction directly to lexical scope boundaries. A common scenario arises when a function returns a pointer to a local automatic object, allowing the pointer to outlive the object's scope. For instance, consider the following C++ code:

cpp

int* createArray() { int localArray[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; return localArray; // Pointer to localArray escapes scope } int main() { int* ptr = createArray(); // ptr now dangles after createArray returns // Accessing *ptr invokes [undefined behavior](/page/Undefined_behavior) }

int* createArray() { int localArray[5] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}; return localArray; // Pointer to localArray escapes scope } int main() { int* ptr = createArray(); // ptr now dangles after createArray returns // Accessing *ptr invokes [undefined behavior](/page/Undefined_behavior) }

Here, localArray is destroyed upon createArray's return, rendering ptr a dangling pointer whose dereference leads to as defined in the C++ standard. In C++, the RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization) idiom further emphasizes scope-bound lifetimes, where objects acquire resources in constructors and release them in destructors called at scope exit. However, this can exacerbate dangling issues if or pointers to automatic objects or temporaries are returned or stored externally. For example, binding a to a temporary object extends the temporary's lifetime only to the end of the full-expression unless explicitly managed, but pointers to such temporaries do not receive this extension and become dangling immediately after the expression evaluates. This mechanism is less prevalent in garbage-collected languages like , where automatic prevents most dangling pointers by tracking live references and reclaiming unreachable objects. Nonetheless, constructs like weak references (e.g., WeakReference in ) can indirectly relate, as they permit object collection without strong retention, potentially leaving the reference cleared (set to null) rather than dangling, though misuse might simulate similar invalid access patterns.

Consequences

Runtime Behaviors

When a dangling pointer is dereferenced or used in a program, it invokes as specified in the C standard, where the outcome is not required to be predictable or consistent across implementations. Possible results include immediate program crashes via hardware-detected memory access violations, silent if the pointed-to memory has been reused by another allocation, or the program producing apparently correct but unreliable output because the reused memory contains coincidental valid data. In severe cases, such access can overwrite adjacent memory regions, leading to further instability or cascading errors later in execution. Common symptoms of dangling pointer usage manifest as runtime errors during dereference operations, such as attempts to read from or write to the invalid address. This may trigger a crash if the memory is no longer mapped, yield garbage values if the location holds unrelated data from a subsequent allocation, or cause unintended modifications to other program variables if the write operation succeeds on reused . Additionally, if the dangling pointer influences —such as in conditional branches or loop counters—it can result in infinite loops or skipped code paths, exacerbating the unpredictability. The following pseudocode illustrates a simple case in C where a pointer becomes dangling after deallocation, leading to potential garbage output or corruption upon reuse:

#include <stdlib.h> int main() { int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); *ptr = 42; // Valid write free(ptr); // Pointer now dangles // Memory may be unmapped or reused int value = *ptr; // Undefined: may crash, read garbage, or read new data if reused // If writing: *ptr = 100; could corrupt another allocation return value; // Unreliable result }

#include <stdlib.h> int main() { int *ptr = malloc(sizeof(int)); *ptr = 42; // Valid write free(ptr); // Pointer now dangles // Memory may be unmapped or reused int value = *ptr; // Undefined: may crash, read garbage, or read new data if reused // If writing: *ptr = 100; could corrupt another allocation return value; // Unreliable result }

This example demonstrates how dereferencing the freed pointer can produce arbitrary values or faults, depending on the runtime environment and allocator behavior. The specific runtime effects exhibit platform dependencies due to differences in and protection mechanisms. On systems such as , accessing the invalid typically generates a SIGSEGV signal, resulting in an immediate that terminates the process unless handled. In contrast, on Windows, the attempt triggers an access violation exception (STATUS_ACCESS_VIOLATION), which may occur promptly if the memory page is unprotected but can be delayed if mapping allows temporary access before protection is enforced. These variations underscore the non-portable nature of in low-level languages like C.

Security Vulnerabilities

Dangling pointers, particularly in the form of use-after-free (UAF) vulnerabilities, pose significant security risks by enabling attackers to manipulate that has been deallocated but not yet overwritten. In a UAF scenario, a program continues to access a pointer to freed heap or stack , which may be reallocated to an attacker-controlled object, allowing , , or sensitive data leakage. This exploit type is classified under CWE-416 in the , which highlights its potential for severe impacts including denial of service and confidentiality breaches. Attackers often leverage heap spraying techniques to facilitate UAF exploitation, where large quantities of malicious objects are allocated in memory to increase the likelihood that freed space is reused with attacker-chosen data, such as shellcode or fake function pointers. This can redirect program control flow, enabling remote code execution. Additionally, UAF vulnerabilities are frequently chained with other flaws, such as integer overflows (CWE-190), where an overflow manipulates allocation sizes or indices to trigger premature deallocation and subsequent misuse of the dangling pointer. For instance, an integer overflow might lead to under-allocation, creating conditions for UAF that exposes critical data structures. Historical examples underscore the real-world dangers of UAF in widely used software. In , CVE-2025-11756 involved a UAF in the Safe Browsing component, allowing remote attackers to achieve by convincing users to visit malicious sites. Similarly, CVE-2020-1752 in the library's glob function exposed a UAF during tilde expansion, potentially enabling local attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service on systems. These cases illustrate how UAF contributes to broader issues, with empirical studies showing it as a persistent factor in zero-day exploits, accounting for a significant portion of high-impact vulnerabilities in browsers and system libraries. UAF's role in memory corruption has been a top concern in software security, as evidenced by its inclusion in the CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors, where it ranks highly due to ease of exploitation and potential for widespread compromise in C/C++-based applications.

Mitigation Strategies

Prevention Techniques

Preventing dangling pointers requires disciplined coding practices and leveraging language features that automate . In languages like and C++ that use manual memory deallocation, a fundamental practice is to set pointers to NULL immediately after freeing the memory they reference. This nullification prevents accidental reuse of the pointer, which could lead to accessing deallocated memory or double-free errors, as calling free() or delete on a is defined to be safe and performs no action. The SEI CERT Coding Standard rule MEM01-C explicitly recommends this approach to eliminate dangling pointers and mitigate associated vulnerabilities. Similarly, the SEI CERT C++ Coding Standard (MEM01-CPP) advises storing a new value, typically NULL, in pointers right after deallocation to avoid from subsequent accesses. In C++, smart pointers provide a robust mechanism for automatic , significantly reducing the risk of dangling pointers by tying deallocation to the pointer's scope or reference count. The std::unique_ptr enforces exclusive , automatically deleting the managed object when the unique_ptr goes out of scope, ensuring no other pointer can claim and thus preventing dangling references. Likewise, std::shared_ptr uses to share among multiple pointers, decrementing the count and deleting the object only when the last shared_ptr is destroyed or reset, which avoids premature deallocation that could leave other pointers dangling. Developers are encouraged to avoid raw pointers for semantics, using them only for non-owning references or observers to minimize manual intervention. Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) is a core C++ idiom that further aids prevention by encapsulating resource acquisition and release within object lifetimes, ensuring cleanup occurs automatically at scope exit even if exceptions are thrown. By wrapping pointers or resources in RAII-compliant classes like smart pointers, C++ code achieves scope-bound deallocation, making dangling pointers unlikely as long as is not transferred improperly. In contrast, languages with garbage collection, such as Python, eliminate manual deallocation entirely, preventing dangling pointers through automatic reclamation based on and cyclic detection. Python's garbage collector tracks object reachability and frees unreferenced objects, avoiding the need for explicit frees that could invalidate pointers. Memory-safe languages like prevent dangling pointers at through strict ownership rules and a borrow checker that enforces reference lifetimes, ensuring no reference outlives the data it points to. This language promotes safe without garbage collection overhead. In June 2025, the U.S. (NSA) and (CISA) issued a Cybersecurity Information Sheet recommending the adoption of memory-safe languages, including , to reduce vulnerabilities such as those caused by dangling pointers. Certain and tools enhance prevention by promoting safer pointer usage. Preferring pass-by-reference over pass-by-pointer in C++ functions avoids returning addresses of temporary objects, as references bind to valid lifetimes and cannot be null, reducing the chance of dangling references compared to raw pointers that might outlive their targets. Static analysis tools with lifetime checking, such as those integrated in compilers like , can verify pointer validities at , flagging potential dangling uses before runtime. The CERT C/C++ secure coding standards also advocate bounds checking on pointer arithmetic to complement nullification, ensuring operations do not access invalid memory regions that could indirectly create dangling scenarios. Emerging techniques include pointer randomization defenses, such as Fully Randomized Pointers (FRP) proposed in 2025, which encode pointers to prevent unauthorized access to deallocated memory while maintaining compatibility with existing binaries and incurring low performance overhead (less than 4% in hardware implementations).

Detection Methods

Static analysis techniques examine source code without execution to identify potential dangling pointers through dataflow and control-flow tracking. Tools like the Clang Static Analyzer employ path-sensitive symbolic execution and dataflow analysis to model pointer lifetimes, detecting use-after-free scenarios where a pointer outlives its referenced memory. Coverity, a commercial static analyzer, uses interprocedural dataflow analysis to uncover pointer misuse, including paths leading to dangling pointer dereferences, by propagating alias and lifetime information across functions. Dynamic analysis instruments running programs to monitor operations in real time. Valgrind's Memcheck tool shadows all reads, writes, allocations, and frees, flagging invalid accesses to deallocated regions as use-after-free errors indicative of dangling pointers. AddressSanitizer (ASan), available in GCC and compilers, replaces standard functions with instrumented versions and uses shadow to track allocation states, immediately trapping and reporting dangling pointer dereferences with stack traces. Debugging techniques aid post-mortem diagnosis of dangling pointer issues. Core dump files, generated when a program crashes due to invalid memory access, can be loaded into GDB to inspect the call stack, register values, and memory contents at the failure point, often revealing dereferences of freed addresses. Guard bytes, inserted by debug allocators around heap blocks, contain sentinel patterns (e.g., 0xFD in Microsoft's CRT); periodic checks verify these patterns to detect adjacent memory overwrites that may corrupt pointer metadata or enable dangling access detection. Advanced methods leverage and randomized testing for thorough detection. Frama-C's Evolved Value (EVA) plugin applies to over-approximate program states, emitting alarms for potential dangling pointers by validating memory accesses against base separation hypotheses and flagging uses of invalid addresses. , particularly greybox variants like those enhanced for memory errors, generates inputs to exercise heap operations, triggering use-after-free vulnerabilities through coverage-guided mutation that exposes dangling pointer dereferences.

References

  1. https://cse.engineering.nyu.edu/jsterling/cs2124/LectureNotes/03.Pointers.html
  2. http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/courses_students.dir/PIC10B_CPP_Summer01.dir/PIC10B_CPP_Summer01.dir/Dinov_PIC10B_UCLA_wk3.pdf
  3. https://wenke.gtisc.gatech.edu/papers/dangnull.pdf
  4. https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MEM30-C.+Do+not+access+freed+memory
  5. https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/lifetime
  6. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/code-quality/c26487?view=msvc-170
  7. https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/476.html
  8. https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/416.html
  9. https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/free.3.html
  10. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/delete-operator-cpp?view=msvc-170
  11. https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/new/operator_delete
  12. https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/storage_duration
  13. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5900165/what-is-the-difference-between-garbage-and-dangling-references
  14. https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2443.pdf
  15. https://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html
  16. https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man7/signal.7.html
  17. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/runtime-libraries/system-accessviolationexception
  18. https://learn.snyk.io/lesson/use-after-free/
  19. https://www.huntress.com/cybersecurity-101/topics/what-is-heap-spraying
  20. https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/190.html
  21. https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends
  22. https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-cwe-journey
  23. https://www.sans.org/top25-software-errors
  24. https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/c/MEM01-C.+Store+a+new+value+in+pointers+immediately+after+free%28%29
  25. https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/cplusplus/MEM01-CPP.+Store+a+new+value+in+pointers+immediately+after+deallocation
  26. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/smart-pointers-modern-cpp?view=msvc-170
  27. https://docs.python.org/3/c-api/memory.html
  28. https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-02-references-and-borrowing.html
  29. https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/memory-safe-languages-reducing-vulnerabilities-modern-software-development
  30. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3735950.3735959
  31. https://www.in-com.com/blog/pointer-analysis-in-c-can-static-code-analysis-solve-the-challenges/
  32. https://sean.heelan.io/category/static-analysis/
  33. https://valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html
  34. https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer
  35. https://www.ccbp.in/blog/articles/dangling-pointer-in-c
  36. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/using-the-debug-build-to-check-for-memory-overwrite?view=msvc-170
  37. https://frama-c.com/download/value-analysis-Neon-20140301.pdf
  38. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3551349.3561161
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.