Path Traversal: '....//'

Description

This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to properly sanitize '....//' sequences. Attackers can use this pattern to break out of the intended directory and access unauthorized files or folders elsewhere on the system.

Extended Description

The '....//' sequence is a specific evasion technique designed to bypass common path traversal filters. If a security mechanism removes or checks for '../' in a single pass, '....//' can be transformed into '../' after the filter runs, allowing the attack to succeed. This often happens with simple string replacement or certain regular expression implementations that don't account for this overlapping pattern. Attackers use this method when applications try to neutralize '..' sequences or when the operating system treats double slashes ('//') as a single slash. Developers must validate entire canonical paths after normalization, rather than just filtering specific strings, to prevent these bypass attempts. Always resolve user-supplied paths to their absolute location and verify they remain within the permitted directory before any file operation.

Common Consequences 1

Scope: ConfidentialityIntegrity

Impact: Read Files or DirectoriesModify Files or Directories

Detection Methods 2

Automated Static Analysis - Source CodeSOAR Partial

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Architecture or Design ReviewHigh

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction

Potential Mitigations 2

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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as Relative Path Traversal, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid Absolute Path Traversal. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (Incomplete List of Disallowed Inputs). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (Collapse of Data into Unsafe Value). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.

Effectiveness: High

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 1

CVE-2004-1670Mail server allows remote attackers to create arbitrary directories via a ".." or rename arbitrary files via a "....//" in user supplied parameters.

References 1

State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation

Gregory Larsen, E. Kenneth Hong Fong, David A. Wheeler, and Rama S. Moorthy

07-2014

https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx(2025-09-05)

ID: REF-1479

Applicable Platforms

Languages:

Not Language-Specific : Undetermined

Modes of Introduction

Implementation

Functional Areas

File Processing

Affected Resources

File or Directory

Related Weaknesses

ChildOf:

Relative Path Traversal (CWE-23)

Taxonomy Mapping

PLOVER
Software Fault Patterns

Notes

RelationshipThis could occur due to a cleansing error that removes a single "../" from "....//"