The application does not use, or incorrectly uses, an input validation framework that is provided by the source language or an independent library.
Extended Description
Many modern coding languages provide developers with input validation frameworks to make the task of input validation easier and less error-prone. These frameworks will automatically check all input against specified criteria and direct execution to error handlers when invalid input is received. The improper use (i.e., an incorrect implementation or missing altogether) of these frameworks is not directly exploitable, but can lead to an exploitable condition if proper input validation is not performed later in the application. Not using provided input validation frameworks can also hurt the maintainability of code as future developers may not recognize the downstream input validation being used in the place of the validation framework.
Relationships
The table(s) below 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More general than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Base - a weakness that is described in an abstract fashion, but with sufficient details to infer specific methods for detection and prevention. More general than a Variant weakness, but more specific than a Class weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Relevant to the view "Development Concepts" (CWE-699)
Nature
Type
ID
Name
ChildOf
Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More general than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Base - a weakness that is described in an abstract fashion, but with sufficient details to infer specific methods for detection and prevention. More general than a Variant weakness, but more specific than a Class weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
Variant - a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness.
The different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the software life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.
Phase
Note
Architecture and Design
This weakness may occur when software designers choose to not leverage input validation frameworks provided by the source language.
Implementation
This weakness may occur when developers do not correctly use a provided input validation framework.
Applicable Platforms
The listings below show 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.
The table below 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.
Scope
Impact
Likelihood
Integrity
Technical Impact: Unexpected State
Unchecked input leads to cross-site scripting, process control, and SQL injection vulnerabilities, among others.
Potential Mitigations
Phase: Implementation
Properly use provided input validation frameworks.
Weakness Ordinalities
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)
Detection Methods
Automated Static Analysis
Some instances of improper input validation can be detected using automated static analysis.
A static analysis tool might allow the user to specify which application-specific methods or functions perform input validation; the tool might also have built-in knowledge of validation frameworks such as Struts. The tool may then suppress or de-prioritize any associated warnings. This allows the analyst to focus on areas of the software in which input validation does not appear to be present.
Except in the cases described in the previous paragraph, automated static analysis might not be able to recognize when proper input validation is being performed, leading to false positives - i.e., warnings that do not have any security consequences or require any code changes.
Content History
Submissions
Submission Date
Submitter
Organization
2018-12-21
CWE Content Team
MITRE
More information is available — Please select a different filter.
Page Last Updated:
January 03, 2019
Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration and the associated references from this website are subject to the
Terms of Use. For more information, please email
cwe@mitre.org.
Description
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (CWE-1000)
