Tag Archives: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements

CWE-138 – Improper Neutralization of Special Elements

Read Time:2 Minute, 23 Second

Description

The software receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as control elements or syntactic markers when they are sent to a downstream component.

Most languages and protocols have their own special elements such as characters and reserved words. These special elements can carry control implications. If software does not prevent external control or influence over the inclusion of such special elements, the control flow of the program may be altered from what was intended. For example, both Unix and Windows interpret the symbol < ("less than") as meaning "read input from a file". Modes of Introduction:

– Implementation

 

 

Related Weaknesses

CWE-707

 

Consequences

Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Other: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Alter Execution Logic, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart

 

Potential Mitigations

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Developers should anticipate that special elements (e.g. delimiters, symbols) will be injected into input vectors of their software system. One defense is to create an allowlist (e.g. a regular expression) that defines valid input according to the requirements specifications. Strictly filter any input that does not match against the allowlist. Properly encode your output, and quote any elements that have special meaning to the component with which you are communicating.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Use and specify an appropriate output encoding to ensure that the special elements are well-defined. A normal byte sequence in one encoding could be a special element in another.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application’s current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.

Phase: Implementation

Description: 

While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).

CVE References

  • CVE-2001-0677
    • Read arbitrary files from mail client by providing a special MIME header that is internally used to store pathnames for attachments.
  • CVE-2000-0703
    • Setuid program does not cleanse special escape sequence before sending data to a mail program, causing the mail program to process those sequences.
  • CVE-2003-0020
    • Multi-channel issue. Terminal escape sequences not filtered from log files.
  • CVE-2003-0083
    • Multi-channel issue. Terminal escape sequences not filtered from log files.