Weakness (CWE)
CWE-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.
How to prevent it (8 mitigations)
-
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]
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
10 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Medium 6.5
Microsoft SharePoint Server Spoofing Vulnerability
Improper input validation in Microsoft Office SharePoint allows an unauthorized attacker to perform spoofing over a network.
KEV Apr 14, 2026 -
Medium 6.5
Microsoft WordPad Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Microsoft WordPad Information Disclosure Vulnerability
KEV Oct 10, 2023 -
Medium 6.5
Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Microsoft Word Information Disclosure Vulnerability
KEV Sep 12, 2023 -
Medium 6.5CVE-2022-2856 Exploited
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Intents in Google Chrome on Android prior to 104.0.5112.101 allowed a rem…
KEV Aug 18, 2022 -
Medium 4.3CVE-2021-35247 Exploited
Improper Input Validation Vulnerability in Serv-U
Serv-U web login screen to LDAP authentication was allowing characters that were not sufficiently sanitized. SolarWinds has updated the input mechanism to perform additional validation and sanitization. Please Note: No downstream affect has been detected as t…
KEV Jan 21, 2022 -
Medium 6.1CVE-2021-38000 Exploited
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Intents in Google Chrome on Android prior to 95.0.4638.69 allowed a remot…
KEV Nov 3, 2021 -
Medium 6.5
Improper input validation in Citrix ADC and Citrix Gateway versions before 13.0-58.30, 12.1-57.18, 12.0-63.21, 11.1-64.…
KEV Nov 3, 2021 -
Medium 6.5
SaltStack Salt is vulnerable Arbitrary Directory Access
An issue was discovered in SaltStack Salt before 2019.2.4 and 3000 before 3000.2. The salt-master process ClearFuncs class allows access to some methods that improperly sanitize paths. These methods allow arbitrary directory access to authenticated users.
KEV Nov 3, 2021 -
Medium 5.9CVE-2017-12319 Exploited
A vulnerability in the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) over an Ethernet Virtual Private Network (EVPN) for Cisco IOS XE S…
KEV Mar 3, 2022 -
Medium 5.9CVE-2009-2055 Exploited
Cisco IOS XR 3.4.0 through 3.8.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (session reset) via a BGP UPDATE …
KEV Mar 25, 2022