Weakness (CWE)
CWE-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.
How to prevent it (3 mitigations)
-
Implementation
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
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
-
Implementation
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.
Source: MITRE CWE-117
3 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Critical 9.8
CallBackery versions before 0.62.0 for Perl allow log injection via newlines in the login name
CallBackery versions before 0.62.0 for Perl allow log injection via newlines in the login name. login() writes the login name to the application log without escaping control characters. The login RPC method needs no authentication, so a name containing a newl…
-
Critical 9.6
OpenWrt odhcpd/LuCI: unauthenticated DHCPv6 client can inject lease-file lines via FQDN hostname → stored XSS in the LuCI admin UI
OpenWrt is a Linux operating system targeting embedded devices. Prior to 25.12.5, odhcpd writes a DHCPv6 client FQDN option 39 hostname into /tmp/odhcpd.leases through src/statefiles.c statefiles_write_state6() and statefiles_write_state4() without escaping, …
-
Critical 9.1CVE-2026-25548 Public exploit
InvoicePlane Vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Local File Inclusion and Log Poisoning
InvoicePlane is a self-hosted open source application for managing invoices, clients, and payments. A critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability exists in InvoicePlane 1.7.0 through a chained Local File Inclusion (LFI) and Log Poisoning attack. An aut…