CWE-586 Base Draft

Explicit Call to Finalize()

This vulnerability occurs when code directly calls an object's finalize() method from outside its designated finalizer context.

Definition

What is CWE-586?

This vulnerability occurs when code directly calls an object's finalize() method from outside its designated finalizer context.
Although the Java language specification technically permits calling an object's finalize() method explicitly, this practice is strongly discouraged and often leads to unexpected behavior. The primary issue is that it forces the finalization routine to execute prematurely, outside the control of the garbage collector, which can corrupt the object's state and break standard cleanup logic. Explicitly invoking finalize() typically causes the method to run multiple times: once during the manual call and again later when the garbage collector naturally disposes of the object. This double execution can trigger resource leaks, double-free errors, or other instability because cleanup code is not designed to be idempotent. Developers should rely on the garbage collector to manage finalization automatically and use try-with-resources or explicit close() methods for deterministic cleanup instead.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-586

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

The following code fragment calls finalize() explicitly:

Vulnerable Java
```
// time to clean up* 
  widget.finalize();
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-586

  • Implementation / Testing Do not make explicit calls to finalize(). Use static analysis tools to spot such instances.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-586

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-586 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-586?

This vulnerability occurs when code directly calls an object's finalize() method from outside its designated finalizer context.

How serious is CWE-586?

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-586?

MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Java.

How can I prevent CWE-586?

Do not make explicit calls to finalize(). Use static analysis tools to spot such instances.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-586?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-586 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-586?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/586.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-586

CWE-1076 Parent

Insufficient Adherence to Expected Conventions

This weakness occurs when software code, design, documentation, or other components fail to follow established industry or…

CWE-1045 Sibling

Parent Class with a Virtual Destructor and a Child Class without a Virtual Destructor

This occurs when a base class defines a virtual destructor, but a derived class inherits from it without declaring its own virtual…

CWE-1070 Sibling

Serializable Data Element Containing non-Serializable Item Elements

This weakness occurs when a class or data structure is marked as serializable, but it contains one or more member elements that cannot be…

CWE-1078 Sibling

Inappropriate Source Code Style or Formatting

This weakness occurs when source code violates established style guidelines for formatting, indentation, whitespace, or commenting, making…

CWE-1079 Sibling

Parent Class without Virtual Destructor Method

This occurs when a base class, designed to be inherited from, does not declare its destructor as virtual. This oversight prevents proper…

CWE-1082 Sibling

Class Instance Self Destruction Control Element

This vulnerability occurs when an object's code contains logic that triggers its own deletion or destruction during runtime.

CWE-1087 Sibling

Class with Virtual Method without a Virtual Destructor

This occurs when a class defines a virtual method but does not also provide a virtual destructor.

CWE-1091 Sibling

Use of Object without Invoking Destructor Method

This weakness occurs when a program accesses an object but fails to properly call its destructor or finalizer method. This leaves the…

CWE-1097 Sibling

Persistent Storable Data Element without Associated Comparison Control Element

This weakness occurs when a persistent data object lacks the necessary methods to be properly compared, which can lead to inconsistent or…

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.