Skip to content
OpenAdvisories

Weakness (CWE)

CWE-20: Improper Input Validation

Class Mapping discouraged

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.

How to prevent it (8 mitigations)
  1. Architecture and Design

    Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses. [REF-1109] [REF-1110] [REF-1111]

  2. Architecture and Design

    Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).

  3. Architecture and Design, Implementation

    Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

  4. 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.

  5. Architecture and Design

    For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. 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.

  6. Implementation

    When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.

  7. Implementation

    Be especially careful to validate all input when invoking code that crosses language boundaries, such as from an interpreted language to native code. This could create an unexpected interaction between the language boundaries. Ensure that you are not violating any of the expectations of the language with which you are interfacing. For example, even though Java may not be susceptible to buffer overflows, providing a large argument in a call to native code might trigger an overflow.

  8. Implementation

    Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.

Source: MITRE CWE-20

368 results · Clear filters · Feed

  • Medium —
    CVE-2011-4858 Public exploit EPSS 80%

    Improper Input Validation in Apache Tomcat

    Apache Tomcat before 5.5.35, 6.x before 6.0.35, and 7.x before 7.0.23 computes hash values for form parameters without restricting the ability to trigger hash collisions predictably, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption)…

  • Medium —
    CVE-2011-3187 Public exploit

    actionpack Improper Input Validation vulnerability

    The to_s method in actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/middleware/remote_ip.rb in Ruby on Rails 3.0.5 does not validate the X-Forwarded-For header in requests from IP addresses on a Class C network, which might allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary text into …

  • Medium —
    CVE-2011-1475 Public exploit

    Apache Tomcat HTTP BIO Connector Error Discloses Information From Different Requests to Remote Users

    The HTTP BIO connector in Apache Tomcat 7.0.x before 7.0.12 does not properly handle HTTP pipelining, which allows remote attackers to read responses intended for other clients in opportunistic circumstances by examining the application data in HTTP packets, …

  • High —
    CVE-2010-4335 Public exploit EPSS 55%

    CakePHP allows remote attackers to modify internal Cake cache and execute arbitrary code

    The _validatePost function in libs/controller/components/security.php in CakePHP 1.3.x through 1.3.5 and 1.2.8 allows remote attackers to modify the internal Cake cache and execute arbitrary code via a crafted data[_Token][fields] value that is processed by t…

  • Medium —
    CVE-2010-1587 Public exploit EPSS 78%

    Apache ActiveMQ Sensitive Information Disclosure via the Jetty ResourceHandler

    The Jetty ResourceHandler in Apache ActiveMQ 5.x before 5.3.2 and 5.4.x before 5.4.0 allows remote attackers to read JSP source code via a // (slash slash) initial substring in a URI for (1) admin/index.jsp, (2) admin/queues.jsp, or (3) admin/topics.jsp.

  • Medium —
    CVE-2009-4492 Public exploit EPSS 16%

    WEBrick Improper Input Validation vulnerability

    WEBrick 1.3.1 in Ruby 1.8.6 through patchlevel 383, 1.8.7 through patchlevel 248, 1.8.8dev, 1.9.1 through patchlevel 376, and 1.9.2dev writes data to a log file without sanitizing non-printable characters, which might allow remote attackers to modify a window…

  • Medium —
    CVE-2008-7248 Public exploit

    Improper Input Validation in actionpack

    Ruby on Rails 2.1 before 2.1.3 and 2.2.x before 2.2.2 does not verify tokens for requests with certain content types, which allows remote attackers to bypass cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection for requests to applications that rely on this protectio…

  • Medium —
    CVE-2008-6504 Public exploit EPSS 39%

    Improper Input Validation in OpenSymphony XWork

    ParametersInterceptor in OpenSymphony XWork 2.0.x before 2.0.6 and 2.1.x before 2.1.2, as used in Apache Struts and other products, does not properly restrict # (pound sign) references to context objects, which allows remote attackers to execute Object-Graph …