Goal Reached Thanks to every supporter — we hit 100%!

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1336 CNY

100%

CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当) — Vulnerability Class 3815

3815 vulnerabilities classified as CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当). AI Chinese analysis included.

CWE-20 represents a critical software weakness where applications fail to properly verify the integrity, format, or type of incoming data before processing it. This oversight allows attackers to inject malicious payloads, such as SQL injection strings or cross-site scripting code, which can bypass security controls and compromise system integrity. Exploitation typically occurs when untrusted data from external sources, like user forms or network packets, is treated as executable code or trusted input. To mitigate this risk, developers must implement rigorous input validation strategies, including strict type checking, length constraints, and allow-listing acceptable characters. Additionally, employing parameterized queries and output encoding ensures that even if validation fails, the injected data remains inert, thereby preserving application security and preventing unauthorized execution or data exposure.

MITRE CWE Description
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. Input validation is a frequently-used technique for checking potentially dangerous inputs in order to ensure that the inputs are safe for processing within the code, or when communicating with other components. Input can consist of: raw data - strings, numbers, parameters, file contents, etc. metadata - information about the raw data, such as headers or size Data can be simple or structured. Structured data can be composed of many nested layers, composed of combinations of metadata and raw data, with other simple or structured data. Many properties of raw data or metadata may need to be validated upon entry into the code, such as: specified quantities such as size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, etc. implied or derived quantities, such as the actual size of a file instead of a specified size indexes, offsets, or positions into more complex data structures symbolic keys or other elements into hash tables, associative arrays, etc. well-formedness, i.e. syntactic correctness - compliance with expected syntax lexical token correctness - compliance with rules for what is treated as a token specified or derived type - the actual type of the input (or what the input appears to be) consistency - between individual data el…
Common Consequences (3)
AvailabilityDoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
An attacker could provide unexpected values and cause a program crash or arbitrary control of resource allocation, leading to excessive consumption of resources such as memory and CPU.
ConfidentialityRead Memory, Read Files or Directories
An attacker could read confidential data if they are able to control resource references.
Integrity, Confidentiality, AvailabilityModify Memory, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
An attacker could use malicious input to modify data or possibly alter control flow in unexpected ways, including arbitrary command execution.
Mitigations (5)
Architecture and DesignConsider 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 subjec…
Architecture and DesignUse 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, ImplementationUnderstand 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 b…
ImplementationAssume 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…
Effectiveness: High
Architecture and DesignFor 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 clien…
Examples (2)
This example demonstrates a shopping interaction in which the user is free to specify the quantity of items to be purchased and a total is calculated.
... public static final double price = 20.00; int quantity = currentUser.getAttribute("quantity"); double total = price * quantity; chargeUser(total); ...
Bad · Java
This example asks the user for a height and width of an m X n game board with a maximum dimension of 100 squares.
... #define MAX_DIM 100 ... /* board dimensions */ int m,n, error; board_square_t *board; printf("Please specify the board height: \n"); error = scanf("%d", &m); if ( EOF == error ){ die("No integer passed: Die evil hacker!\n"); } printf("Please specify the board width: \n"); error = scanf("%d", &n); if ( EOF == error ){ die("No integer passed: Die evil hacker!\n"); } if ( m > MAX_DIM || n > MAX_DIM ) { die("Value too large: Die evil hacker!\n"); } board = (board_square_t*) malloc( m * n * sizeof(board_square_t)); ...
Bad · C
CVE IDTitleCVSSSeverityPublished
CVE-2026-48316 ColdFusion | Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) — ColdFusion 10.0 Critical2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46588 Apache Camel: CouchDB: Non-Camel-prefixed Exchange headers bypass HeaderFilterStrategy allowing operation override from untrusted input — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46587 Apache Camel: Couchbase: Non-Camel-prefixed Exchange headers bypass HeaderFilterStrategy allowing operation override from untrusted input — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-49042 Apache Camel: langchain4j-tools: filter tool argument headers against declared parameters — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-56140 Apache Camel AWS2 SNS: An inbound Camel-namespace filter was added to Sns2HeaderFilterStrategy to align it with sibling components — Apache Camel AWS2 SNS--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-55994 Apache Camel Iggy: The inbound consumer maps externally-supplied Iggy message user-headers into the Exchange without a HeaderFilterStrategy, allowing injection of Camel control headers - enabling control over internal behaviour — Apache Camel Iggy--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-55993 Apache Camel Atmosphere Websocket: The inbound consumer maps externally-supplied WebSocket query parameters into the Exchange without a HeaderFilterStrategy, allowing injection of Camel control headers - enabling influencing internal behaviour — Apache Camel Atmosphere Websocket--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-49098 Apache Camel: Camel-Kafka: The kafka.OVERRIDE_TOPIC (and other kafka.*) Exchange header constants used non-Camel-prefixed names that bypass the upstream HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to redirect Kafka messages to an arbitrary topic — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-49097 Apache Camel: Camel-IRC: The irc.sendTo (and other irc.*) Exchange header constants used non-Camel-prefixed names that bypass the HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to redirect outgoing IRC messages to arbitrary channels or users — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-49086 Apache Camel Dapr: Pub/Sub consumer copied the inbound CloudEvent's pub/sub-name and topic into producer-direction routing headers, allowing an actor who can publish to the subscribed topic to influence internal behaviour — Apache Camel Dapr--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-48206 Apache Camel JIRA: A set of non-Camel-prefixed Exchange header constants bypass the HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to drive arbitrary JIRA issue operations using the endpoint's configured credentials — Apache Camel JIRA--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-48205 Apache Camel DNS: The dns.* and term Exchange header constants used non-Camel-prefixed names that bypass the HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to influence internal behaviour — Apache Camel DNS--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-48204 Apache Camel: Camel-MongoDB-GridFS: The gridfs.* control headers used non-Camel-prefixed names that bypass the HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to switch the GridFS operation - including destructive file deletion - in the default configuration — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46726 Apache Camel Vertx Websocket: The inbound consumer maps externally-supplied WebSocket query and path parameters into the Exchange without a HeaderFilterStrategy, allowing injection of Camel control headers — Apache Camel Vertx Websocket--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46592 Apache Camel: Camel-CXF: The SOAP operation-selection headers used non-Camel-prefixed names (operationName, operationNamespace) that bypass the HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to redirect the invoked SOAP operation — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46585 Apache Camel Lucene: The query control headers used non-Camel-prefixed names (QUERY, RETURN_LUCENE_DOCS) that bypass the HTTP header filter, allowing an HTTP client to inject the full-text search query — Apache Camel Lucene--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46584 Apache Camel Mail: The mail producer applied attacker-supplied message headers as JavaMail session properties, allowing an attacker to influence SMTP parameters — Apache Camel Mail--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46457 Apache Camel: Camel-NATS: Inbound NATS message headers are mapped into the Exchange without a configured HeaderFilterStrategy, allowing a client that can publish to the subject to inject Camel control headers — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46456 Apache Camel: Camel-AWS2-SQS: Inbound message attributes are mapped into the Exchange without an inbound HeaderFilterStrategy, allowing a message sender to inject Camel control headers — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46454 Apache Camel: Camel-Cometd: Inbound Bayeux message headers are mapped into the Exchange without a HeaderFilterStrategy, allowing unauthenticated clients to inject Camel control headers — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-46453 Apache Camel: Camel-Elasticsearch-Rest-Client: Exchange header constants without the Camel prefix bypass inbound HTTP header filtering, allowing untrusted clients to override the Elasticsearch query and operation — Apache Camel--2026-07-06
CVE-2026-59509 Unauthenticated arbitrary MongoDB collection read in cve-search — cve-search--2026-07-05
CVE-2026-58292 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability — Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) 7.5 High2026-07-03
CVE-2026-57985 Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability — Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) 7.6 High2026-07-03
CVE-2026-22547 Gitea repository creation accepts invalid field values — Gitea Open Source Git Server--2026-07-03
CVE-2026-14631 webpack-dev-server vulnerable to denial of service via a malformed Host or Origin header — webpack-dev-server 5.3 Medium2026-07-03
CVE-2026-13341 Prompt Injection and Credential Exposure via Untrusted Analytics Data in Kong Konnect MCP — mcp-konnect 7.4 High2026-07-03
CVE-2026-54405 Ubiquiti UniFi Network Application 输入验证错误漏洞 — UniFi Network Application 7.5 High2026-07-02
CVE-2026-54402 Ubiquiti UniFi OS Server 输入验证错误漏洞 — UniFi OS Server 9.9 Critical2026-07-02
CVE-2026-50748 Ubiquiti UniFi Access Application 输入验证错误漏洞 — UniFi Access Application 9.9 Critical2026-07-02

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当) represent 3815 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.