CWE-571 Base Draft

Expression is Always True

This vulnerability occurs when code contains a conditional expression that will always evaluate to 'true', making the check ineffective and potentially bypassing critical security or logic gates.

Definition

What is CWE-571?

This vulnerability occurs when code contains a conditional expression that will always evaluate to 'true', making the check ineffective and potentially bypassing critical security or logic gates.
An 'always true' expression often stems from logic errors where a developer compares a variable against itself, uses a constant instead of a variable, or creates a condition that can never be false due to prior operations. For example, checking `if (x > 5 || x >= 5)` is redundant because the second part is always true if the first is false. This dead code not only clutters the logic but can silently disable security validations, access controls, or error-handling routines, creating a false sense of security. From a security perspective, these flaws are particularly dangerous in authentication checks, input validation, or privilege escalation guards, as they may allow unauthorized actions to proceed. To prevent this, developers should audit conditional logic for tautologies, use static analysis tools to detect unreachable code, and carefully review comparisons involving constants or variables that may have been modified earlier in the function flow.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-571

No public CVE references are linked to this CWE in MITRE's catalog yet.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

  1. 1

    Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.

  2. 2

    Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.

  3. 3

    Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.

  4. 4

    Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable Java

In the following Java example the updateInventory() method used within an e-business product ordering/inventory application will check if the input product number is in the store or in the warehouse. If the product is found, the method will update the store or warehouse database as well as the aggregate product database. If the product is not found, the method intends to do some special processing without updating any database.

Vulnerable Java
public void updateInventory(String productNumber) {
  		boolean isProductAvailable = false;
  		boolean isDelayed = false;
  		if (productInStore(productNumber)) {
  			isProductAvailable = true;
  			updateInStoreDatabase(productNumber);
  		}
  		else if (productInWarehouse(productNumber)) {
  			isProductAvailable = true;
  			updateInWarehouseDatabase(productNumber);
  		}
  		else {
  			isProductAvailable = true;
  		}
  		if ( isProductAvailable ) {
  			updateProductDatabase(productNumber);
  		}
  		else if ( isDelayed ) {
```
/* Warn customer about delay before order processing */* 
  				...}}
Secure code example

Secure pseudo

Secure pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Prevention checklist

How to prevent CWE-571

  • Testing Use Static Analysis tools to spot such conditions.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-571

Automated Static Analysis High

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Plexicus auto-fix

Plexicus auto-detects CWE-571 and opens a fix PR in under 60 seconds.

Codex Remedium scans every commit, identifies this exact weakness, and ships a reviewer-ready pull request with the patch. No tickets. No hand-offs.

Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-571?

This vulnerability occurs when code contains a conditional expression that will always evaluate to 'true', making the check ineffective and potentially bypassing critical security or logic gates.

How serious is CWE-571?

MITRE has not published a likelihood-of-exploit rating for this weakness. Treat it as medium-impact until your threat model proves otherwise.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-571?

MITRE has not specified affected platforms for this CWE — it can apply across most application stacks.

How can I prevent CWE-571?

Use Static Analysis tools to spot such conditions.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-571?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-571 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.

Where can I learn more about CWE-571?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/571.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-571

CWE-710 Parent

Improper Adherence to Coding Standards

This weakness occurs when developers don't consistently follow established coding standards and best practices, which can introduce…

CWE-1041 Sibling

Use of Redundant Code

This weakness occurs when a codebase contains identical or nearly identical logic duplicated across multiple functions, methods, or…

CWE-1044 Sibling

Architecture with Number of Horizontal Layers Outside of Expected Range

This occurs when a software system is built with either too many or too few distinct architectural layers, falling outside a recommended…

CWE-1048 Sibling

Invokable Control Element with Large Number of Outward Calls

This weakness occurs when a single function, method, or callable code block makes an excessively high number of calls to other objects or…

CWE-1059 Sibling

Insufficient Technical Documentation

This weakness occurs when a software or hardware product lacks comprehensive technical documentation. Missing or incomplete details about…

CWE-1061 Sibling

Insufficient Encapsulation

This weakness occurs when a software component exposes too much of its internal workings, such as data structures or implementation logic.…

CWE-1065 Sibling

Runtime Resource Management Control Element in a Component Built to Run on Application Servers

This weakness occurs when an application built to run on a managed application server bypasses the server's high-level APIs and instead…

CWE-1066 Sibling

Missing Serialization Control Element

This weakness occurs when a class or data structure is marked as serializable but lacks the required control methods to properly handle…

CWE-1068 Sibling

Inconsistency Between Implementation and Documented Design

This weakness occurs when the actual code implementation deviates from the intended design described in its official documentation,…

Ready when you are

Don't Let Security
Weigh You Down.

Stop choosing between AI velocity and security debt. Plexicus is the only platform that runs Vibe Coding Security and ASPM in parallel — one workflow, every codebase.