Improper Handling of URL Encoding (Hex Encoding)

Draft Variant
Structure: Simple
Description

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to correctly process URL-encoded (also known as percent-encoded or hex-encoded) input, either by double-decoding it, not decoding it at all, or inconsistently handling encoded characters across different security checks.

Extended Description

URL encoding (like %20 for a space) is a standard way to safely transmit special characters in web requests. The security flaw arises when an application's validation logic, filtering routines, and business logic treat the same encoded input differently. For example, a security filter might check the raw encoded string, while a later processing step decodes it, allowing malicious payloads to slip through undetected. This inconsistency creates a classic security bypass. An attacker can embed malicious code (like SQL commands or script tags) within encoded sequences that evade initial validation. To prevent this, developers must ensure all security controls—input validation, output encoding, and business logic—operate on the same canonical, decoded representation of the data, and apply decoding only once, at the very beginning of the request pipeline.

Common Consequences 1
Scope: Integrity

Impact: Unexpected State

Potential Mitigations 3
Phase: Architecture and Design

Strategy: Input Validation

Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
Phase: Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

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.
Phase: Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (Double Decoding of the Same Data). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
Observed Examples 19
CVE-2000-0900Hex-encoded path traversal variants - "%2e%2e", "%2e%2e%2f", "%5c%2e%2e"
CVE-2005-2256Hex-encoded path traversal variants - "%2e%2e", "%2e%2e%2f", "%5c%2e%2e"
CVE-2004-2121Hex-encoded path traversal variants - "%2e%2e", "%2e%2e%2f", "%5c%2e%2e"
CVE-2004-0280"%20" (encoded space)
CVE-2003-0424"%20" (encoded space)
CVE-2001-0693"%20" (encoded space)
CVE-2001-0778"%20" (encoded space)
CVE-2002-1831Crash via hex-encoded space "%20".
CVE-2000-0671"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2004-0189"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2002-1291"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2002-1031"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2001-1140"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2004-0760"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2002-1025"%00" (encoded null)
CVE-2002-1213"%2f" (encoded slash)
CVE-2004-0072"%5c" (encoded backslash) and "%2e" (encoded dot) sequences
CVE-2004-0847"%5c" (encoded backslash)
CVE-2002-1575"%0a" (overlaps CRLF)
Applicable Platforms
Languages:
Not Language-Specific : Undetermined
Modes of Introduction
Implementation
Related Weaknesses
Taxonomy Mapping
  • PLOVER