Détail du CWE-144

CWE-144

Improper Neutralization of Line Delimiters
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2023-06-29
00h00 +00:00
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Improper Neutralization of Line Delimiters

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

Description du CWE

As data is parsed, an injected/absent/malformed delimiter may cause the process to take unexpected actions.

Informations générales

Modes d'introduction

Implementation

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
IntegrityUnexpected State

Exemples observés

Références Description

CVE-2002-0267

Linebreak in field of PHP script allows admin privileges when written to data file.

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Developers should anticipate that line delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
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.


Phases : Implementation
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).
Phases : Implementation
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.

Notes de cartographie des vulnérabilités

Justification : This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Commentaire : 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.

NotesNotes

Depending on the language and syntax being used, this could be the same as the record delimiter (CWE-143).

Références

REF-62

The Art of Software Security Assessment
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, Justin Schuh.

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
PLOVER 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Relationships, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-07-27 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2010-04-05 +00:00 updated Description, Name
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-03-29 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-27 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-10-30 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-05-03 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms
CWE Content Team MITRE 2019-01-03 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-06-25 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-01-31 +00:00 updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes