The product uses or specifies an encoding when generating output to a downstream component, but the specified encoding is not the same as the encoding that is expected by the downstream component.

This weakness can cause the downstream component to use a decoding method that produces different data than what the product intended to send. When the wrong encoding is used - even if closely related - the downstream component could decode the data incorrectly. This can have security consequences when the provided boundaries between control and data are inadvertently broken, because the resulting data could introduce control characters or special elements that were not sent by the product. The resulting data could then be used to bypass protection mechanisms such as input validation, and enable injection attacks.

While using output encoding is essential for ensuring that communications between components are accurate, the use of the wrong encoding - even if closely related - could cause the downstream component to misinterpret the output.

For example, HTML entity encoding is used for elements in the HTML body of a web page. However, a programmer might use entity encoding when generating output for that is used within an attribute of an HTML tag, which could contain functional Javascript that is not affected by the HTML encoding.

While web applications have received the most attention for this problem, this weakness could potentially apply to any type of product that uses a communications stream that could support multiple encodings.

Applicable Platforms

Language

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

Common Consequences

Observed Examples

Potential Mitigations

Phases : Implementation
Use context-aware encoding. That is, understand which encoding is being used by the downstream component, and ensure that this encoding is used. If an encoding can be specified, do so, instead of assuming that the default encoding is the same as the default being assumed by the downstream component.
Phases : Architecture and Design
Where possible, use communications protocols or data formats that provide strict boundaries between control and data. If this is not feasible, ensure that the protocols or formats allow the communicating components to explicitly state which encoding/decoding method is being used. Some template frameworks provide built-in support.
Phases : Architecture and Design

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.

For example, consider using the ESAPI Encoding control [REF-45] or a similar tool, library, or framework. These will help the programmer encode outputs in a manner less prone to error.

Note that some template mechanisms provide built-in support for the appropriate encoding.

Detection Methods

Automated Static Analysis

Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness : High

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.

Related Attack Patterns

References

REF-786

Injection-safe templating languages
Jim Manico.
https://manicode.blogspot.com/2010/06/injection-safe-templating-languages_30.html

REF-787

Can we please stop saying that XSS is boring and easy to fix!
Dinis Cruz.
http://diniscruz.blogspot.com/2010/09/can-we-please-stop-saying-that-xss-is.html

REF-788

Canoe: XSS prevention via context-aware output encoding
Ivan Ristic.
https://blog.ivanristic.com/2010/09/introducing-canoe-context-aware-output-encoding-for-xss-prevention.html

REF-789

What is the Future of Automated XSS Defense Tools?
Jim Manico.
http://software-security.sans.org/downloads/appsec-2011-files/manico-appsec-future-tools.pdf

REF-709

XSS Attacks
Jeremiah Grossman, Robert "RSnake" Hansen, Petko "pdp" D. Petkov, Anton Rager, Seth Fogie.

REF-725

DOM based XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet
OWASP.
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/DOM_based_XSS_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet

REF-45

OWASP Enterprise Security API (ESAPI) Project
OWASP.
http://www.owasp.org/index.php/ESAPI

Submission

Modifications