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

Goal: 1000 CNY · Raised: 1000 CNY

100.0%
Buy Us a Coffee

CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当) — Vulnerability Class 3320

3320 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-2026-1315 Unauthenticated Denial of Service via Firmware Update Endpoint on TP-Link Tapo C220 & C520WS — Tapo C220 v1 6.5AIMediumAI2026-01-27
CVE-2026-0919 Unauthenticated Denial of Service via Oversized URL in HTTP Parser on TP-Link Tapo C210, C220 & C520WS — Tapo C220 v1 7.5AIHighAI2026-01-27
CVE-2026-24348 Multiple cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in EZCast Pro II Dongle — EZCast Pro II 4.8AIMediumAI2026-01-27
CVE-2026-24347 Arbitrary file write to /tmp directory in EZCast Pro II Dongle — EZCast Pro II 7.5AIHighAI2026-01-27
CVE-2026-24345 Cross-Site Request Forgery in EZCast Pro II Dongle — EZCast Pro II 8.8AIHighAI2026-01-27
CVE-2026-24412 iccDEV has Heap Buffer Overflow in icCurvesFromXml() — iccDEV 8.8 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24411 iccDEV has Undefined Behavior and Null Pointer Deference in CIccTagXmlSegmentedCurve::ToXml() — iccDEV 7.1 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24410 iccDEV has Undefined Behavior and Null Pointer Deference in CIccProfileXml::ParseBasic() — iccDEV 7.1 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24409 iccDEV has Undefined Behavior and Null Pointer Deference in CIccTagXmlFloatNum<>::ParseXml() — iccDEV 7.1 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24407 iccDEV has Undefined Behavior in icSigCalcOp() — iccDEV 7.1 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24406 iccDEV has Heap Buffer Overflow in CIccTagNamedColor2::SetSize() — iccDEV 8.8 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24405 iccDEV has Heap Buffer Overflow in CIccMpeCalculator::Read() — iccDEV 8.8 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24404 iccDEV has Null Pointer Deference and Undefined Behavior in CIccXmlArrayType() — iccDEV 7.1 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-24403 iccDEV Undefined Behavior in CIccProfile::CheckHeader() Leads to Integer Overflow — iccDEV 7.1 High2026-01-24
CVE-2026-1225 Malicious logback.xml configuration file allows instantiation of arbitrary classes — Logback-core 7.5AIHighAI2026-01-22
CVE-2026-22598 ManageIQ vulnerable to DoS Attack when creating TimeProfiles — manageiq 6.5AIMediumAI2026-01-21
CVE-2025-68134 EVerest's use of assert functions can potentially lead to denial of service — everest-core 7.4 High2026-01-21
CVE-2026-22444 Apache Solr: Insufficient file-access checking in standalone core-creation requests — Apache Solr 5.3AIMediumAI2026-01-21
CVE-2026-0933 OS Command Injection in `wrangler pages deploy` — Wrangler 9.8AICriticalAI2026-01-20
CVE-2026-0903 Google Chrome 输入验证错误漏洞 — Chrome 7.1 -2026-01-20
CVE-2026-23886 Swift W3C TraceContext has malformed HTTP header that can cause a crash — swift-w3c-trace-context 5.3 Medium2026-01-19
CVE-2026-23880 OnboardLite has stored Cross-site Scripting issue that may lead to admin Account Take Over — OnboardLite 7.3 High2026-01-19
CVE-2026-23841 Movary vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting with `?categoryCreated=` param — movary 9.3 Critical2026-01-19
CVE-2026-23840 Movary vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting with `?categoryDeleted=` param — movary 9.3 Critical2026-01-19
CVE-2026-23839 Movary vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting with `?categoryUpdated=` param — movary 9.3 Critical2026-01-19
CVE-2026-23836 HotCRP vulnerable to remote code execution through formulas — hotcrp 10.0 Critical2026-01-19
CVE-2025-61684 Quicly has assertion failures — quicly 7.5 High2026-01-19
CVE-2025-29847 Apache Linkis: Arbitrary File Read via Double URL Encoding Bypass — Apache Linkis 7.5AIHighAI2026-01-19
CVE-2025-12718 Quick Contact Form <= 8.2.6 - Unauthenticated Open Mail Relay — Quick Contact Form 5.8 Medium2026-01-17
CVE-2025-9014 Null Pointer Dereference Vulnerability on TL-WR841N — TL-WR841N v14 7.5AIHighAI2026-01-15

Vulnerabilities classified as CWE-20 (输入验证不恰当) represent 3320 CVEs. The CWE taxonomy describes the weakness; review individual CVEs for product-specific impact.