- Home
-
CWE-1069: Empty Exception Block
Weakness ID: 1069Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Variant Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.View customized information:Shows the description and diagram, platforms, mitigations, consequences, relationships, memberships, and content history. For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers. For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts. For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers. For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry. For users who want to customize what details are displayed.×
Edit Custom Filter
More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter.An invokable code block contains an exception handling block that does not contain any code, i.e. is empty.
This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
Impact Details Reduce Reliability
Scope: Other When an exception handling block (such as a Catch and Finally block) is used, but that block is empty, this can prevent the product from running reliably. If the relevant code is reachable by an attacker, then this reliability problem might introduce a vulnerability.Phase(s) Mitigation Implementation
For every exception block add code that handles the specific exception in the way intended by the application.
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf, Overlaps, and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Complete Weakness Hierarchy" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name ChildOf Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
1071 Empty Code Block
The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
Phase(s) Note Implementation
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
Type Applicable Platforms Notes Languages Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)
Example 1
The following code excerpt ignores a rarely-thrown exception from doExchange().
(bad code)Example Language: Javatry {doExchange();}
catch (RareException e) {// this can never happen}If a RareException were to ever be thrown, the program would continue to execute as though nothing unusual had occurred. The program records no evidence indicating the special situation, potentially frustrating any later attempt to explain the program's behavior.
Example 2
In the following Java example, the code catches an ArithmeticException.
(bad code)Example Language: Javapublic class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {int a = 1;
int b = 0;
int c = 0;
try {c = a / b;
} catch(ArithmeticException ae) {
}
}
}Since the exception block is empty, no action is taken.
In the code below the exception has been logged and the bad execution has been handled in the desired way allowing the program to continue in an expected way.
(good code)Example Language: Javapublic class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {int a = 1;
int b = 0;
int c = 0;
try {c = a / b;
} catch(ArithmeticException ae) {log.error("Divided by zero detected, setting to -1.");
c = -1;
}
}
}
Ordinality Description Indirect(where the weakness is a quality issue that might indirectly make it easier to introduce security-relevant weaknesses or make them more difficult to detect)Method Details Automated Static Analysis
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.)Effectiveness: High
This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Nature Type ID Name MemberOf Grouping - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
1129 CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Reliability MemberOf Grouping - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic.
1412 Comprehensive Categorization: Poor Coding Practices Usage ALLOWED (this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)Reasons Acceptable-Use, Other Rationale
This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities. Comments
Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction. In many cases, the use of an empty exception block may only indicate a quality issue. However, in some cases, it prevents the product from appropriately responding to security-critical events. Consider also mapping to the higher-level weakness that is resultant from this one. Note: this weakness was formerly 'Prohibited' for mapping from CWE 4.14 (2024-02-29) to CWE 4.19.1 (2026-01-21). [REF-961] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Reliability Measure (ASCRM)". ASCRM-RLB-1. 2016-01.
<http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCRM/1.0/>.
SubmissionsSubmission Date Submitter Organization 2018-07-02
(CWE 3.2, 2019-01-03)CWE Content Team MITRE Entry derived from Common Quality Enumeration (CQE) Draft 0.9.
ContributionsContribution Date Contributor Organization 2026-04-07
(CWE 4.20, 2026-04-30)Daniel "acepace" Goldberg Tenzai Reported CWE-391 as suggesting CWE-1069, whose mapping usage was Prohibited at the time, leading to changing CWE-1069's usage to Allowed. 2022-08-15
(CWE 4.9, 2022-10-13)Drew Buttner MITRE Suggested new demonstrative examples, mitigations, and applicable platforms.
ModificationsModification Date Modifier Organization 2026-10-28
(CWE 5.0, 2026-10-28)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors 2026-04-30
(CWE 4.20, 2026-04-30)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Mapping_Notes 2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Common_Consequences, Description, Time_of_Introduction 2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Demonstrative_Examples, Mapping_Notes 2023-06-29
(CWE 4.12, 2023-06-29)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Mapping_Notes 2023-04-27
(CWE 4.11, 2023-04-27)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Relationships, Type 2023-01-31
(CWE 4.10, 2023-01-31)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Description 2022-10-13
(CWE 4.9, 2022-10-13)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations 2020-02-24
(CWE 4.0, 2020-02-24)CWE Content Team MITRE updated Relationships, Type More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter.Page Last Updated: Oct 28, 2026Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE™) and the associated references from this website are subject to the Terms of Use. CWE is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and managed by the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI) which is operated by The MITRE Corporation (MITRE). Copyright © 2006–2026, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation.


