CWE-1288 Detail

CWE-1288

Improper Validation of Consistency within Input
Incomplete
2020-02-24 00:00 +00:00
2023-06-29 00:00 +00:00

Alerte pour un CWE

Stay informed of any changes for a specific CWE.
Alert management

Improper Validation of Consistency within Input

The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.

Extended Description

Some input data can be structured with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, e.g. a number-of-items field that is followed by the expected number of elements. When such complex inputs are inconsistent, attackers could trigger unexpected errors, cause incorrect actions to take place, or exploit latent vulnerabilities.

Informations

Modes Of Introduction

Implementation

Applicable Platforms

Language

Class: Not Language-Specific (Often)

Common Consequences

Scope Impact Likelihood
OtherVaries by Context

Observed Examples

Reference Description
CVE-2018-16733product does not validate that the start block appears before the end block
CVE-2006-3790size field that is inconsistent with packet size leads to buffer over-read
CVE-2008-4114system crash with offset value that is inconsistent with packet size

Potential Mitigations

Phases : 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.


Vulnerability Mapping Notes

Rationale : This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Comments : Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

Notes

This entry is still under development and will continue to see updates and content improvements.

Submission

Name Organization Date Date Release Version
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-06-24 +00:00 2020-02-24 +00:00 4.1

Modifications

Name Organization Date Comment
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes
Click on the button to the left (OFF), to authorize the inscription of cookie improving the functionalities of the site. Click on the button to the left (Accept all), to unauthorize the inscription of cookie improving the functionalities of the site.