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

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%

CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当) — Vulnerability Class 3357

3357 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-2023-45648 Apache Tomcat: Trailer header parsing too lenient — Apache Tomcat 7.5 -2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36566 Microsoft Common Data Model SDK Denial of Service Vulnerability — Microsoft Common Data Model SDK for Java 6.5 Medium2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36563 Microsoft WordPad Information Disclosure Vulnerability — Windows 10 Version 1809 6.5 Medium2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36585 Windows upnphost.dll Denial of Service Vulnerability — Windows 10 Version 1809 7.5 High2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36697 Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability — Windows 10 Version 1809 6.8 Medium2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36706 Windows Deployment Services Information Disclosure Vulnerability — Windows Server 2019 6.5 Medium2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36707 Windows Deployment Services Denial of Service Vulnerability — Windows Server 2019 6.5 Medium2023-10-10
CVE-2023-36731 Win32k Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability — Windows 10 Version 1809 7.8 High2023-10-10
CVE-2023-35349 Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability — Windows 10 Version 1809 9.8 Critical2023-10-10
CVE-2023-32485 Dell SmartFabric Storage Software 输入验证错误漏洞 — Dell SmartFabric Storage Software 9.8 Critical2023-10-05
CVE-2023-43073 Dell SmartFabric Storage Software 输入验证错误漏洞 — Dell SmartFabric Storage Software 4.3 Medium2023-10-05
CVE-2023-43799 The Altair Desktop Client Does Not Sanitize External URLs before passing them to the underlying system — altair 5.0 Medium2023-10-04
CVE-2023-42449 Malicious head initialiser can extract PTs from control of Hydra scripts, leading to locked participant commits or spoofed commits — hydra 8.1 High2023-10-04
CVE-2023-42448 Hydra's contestation period in head datum can be modified during Close transaction, allowing malicious participant to freely modify the contestation deadline — hydra 8.1 High2023-10-04
CVE-2023-38701 Hydra's committed UTxOs at Commit validator and UTxOs at Initial validator can be spent arbitrarily by anyone — hydra 9.1 Critical2023-10-04
CVE-2023-39191 Kernel: ebpf: insufficient stack type checks in dynptr — Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 8.2 High2023-10-04
CVE-2023-4586 Hotrod-client: hot rod client does not enable hostname validation when using tls that lead to a mitm attack — Red Hat Data Grid 8.4.6 7.4 High2023-10-04
CVE-2023-42508 JFrog Artifactory Improper header input validation leads to email manipulation sent from the platform — Artifactory 6.5 Medium2023-10-03
CVE-2023-24853 Improper Input Validation in HLOS — Snapdragon 8.4 High2023-10-03
CVE-2023-22382 Improper Input Validation in Automotive — Snapdragon 7.4 High2023-10-03
CVE-2023-3770 Vulnerability in Ingeteam's INGEPAC DA — INGEPAC DA3451 5.3 Medium2023-10-02
CVE-2023-3769 Vulnerability in Ingeteam's INGEPAC EF — INGEPAC FC5066 8.6 High2023-10-02
CVE-2023-3768 Vulnerability in Ingeteam's INGEPAC EF/DA — INGEPAC DA3451 8.6 High2023-10-02
CVE-2023-41303 Huawei HarmonyOS 命令注入漏洞 — HarmonyOS 9.1 -2023-09-25
CVE-2022-48605 Huawei HarmonyOS 安全漏洞 — HarmonyOS 9.8 -2023-09-25
CVE-2023-41300 Huawei HarmonyOS 安全漏洞 — HarmonyOS 7.5 -2023-09-25
CVE-2023-42798 AutomataCI Release Job Can Revert Repo to First Commit — AutomataCI 8.2 High2023-09-22
CVE-2023-42805 quinn-proto Denial of Service vulnerability — quinn 7.5 High2023-09-21
CVE-2023-4753 OpenHarmony v3.2.1 and prior version has a system call function usage error — OpenHarmony 3.9 Low2023-09-21
CVE-2023-5104 Improper Input Validation in nocodb/nocodb — nocodb/nocodb 9.8 -2023-09-21

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当) represent 3357 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.