Interpretation Conflict

Incomplete Class
Structure: Simple
Description

An interpretation conflict occurs when two systems process the same data or sequence of events differently, leading one system to make incorrect decisions based on its flawed understanding of the other's state.

Extended Description

This vulnerability commonly arises in security or monitoring components that sit between a client and a server, such as web application firewalls (WAFs), intrusion prevention systems (IPS), proxies, or anti-virus scanners. These intermediary devices analyze traffic, often modifying, blocking, or allowing it based on their own interpretation of protocol rules or expected behavior. When their interpretation diverges from how the actual endpoints (the client or server) process the same traffic, a critical mismatch in perceived state occurs. For developers, this means that even if your client and server code communicate correctly, an intermediary's different parsing of headers, payloads, or connection sequences can introduce security gaps. The intermediary might incorrectly allow malicious traffic it doesn't fully understand, or conversely, block legitimate requests it misinterprets as harmful. This conflict undermines the security posture by creating a blind spot where the protective layer and the protected application are effectively out of sync.

Common Consequences 1
Scope: IntegrityOther

Impact: Unexpected StateVaries by Context

Demonstrative Examples 2
The paper "Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection" [REF-428] shows that OSes varied widely in how they manage unusual packets, which made it difficult or impossible for intrusion detection systems to properly detect certain attacker manipulations that took advantage of these OS differences.
Null characters have different interpretations in Perl and C, which have security consequences when Perl invokes C functions. Similar problems have been reported in ASP [REF-429] and PHP.
Observed Examples 9
CVE-2005-1215Bypass filters or poison web cache using requests with multiple Content-Length headers, a non-standard behavior.
CVE-2002-0485Anti-virus product allows bypass via Content-Type and Content-Disposition headers that are mixed case, which are still processed by some clients.
CVE-2002-1978FTP clients sending a command with "PASV" in the argument can cause firewalls to misinterpret the server's error as a valid response, allowing filter bypass.
CVE-2002-1979FTP clients sending a command with "PASV" in the argument can cause firewalls to misinterpret the server's error as a valid response, allowing filter bypass.
CVE-2002-0637Virus product bypass with spaces between MIME header fields and the ":" separator, a non-standard message that is accepted by some clients.
CVE-2002-1777AV product detection bypass using inconsistency manipulation (file extension in MIME Content-Type vs. Content-Disposition field).
CVE-2005-3310CMS system allows uploads of files with GIF/JPG extensions, but if they contain HTML, Internet Explorer renders them as HTML instead of images.
CVE-2005-4260Interpretation conflict allows XSS via invalid "<" when a ">" is expected, which is treated as ">" by many web browsers.
CVE-2005-4080Interpretation conflict (non-standard behavior) enables XSS because browser ignores invalid characters in the middle of tags.
References 5
On Interpretation Conflict Vulnerabilities
Steve Christey
Bugtraq
03-11-2005
ID: REF-427
Insertion, Evasion, and Denial of Service: Eluding Network Intrusion Detection
Thomas H. Ptacek and Timothy N. Newsham
01-1998
ID: REF-428
0x00 vs ASP file upload scripts
Brett Moore
13-07-2004
ID: REF-429
Re: Corsaire Security Advisory - Multiple vendor MIME RFC2047 encoding
David F. Skoll
Bugtraq
15-09-2004
ID: REF-431
Perl CGI problems
Rain Forest Puppy
Phrack
09-09-1999
ID: REF-514
Applicable Platforms
Languages:
Not Language-Specific : Undetermined
Modes of Introduction
Architecture and Design
Implementation
Taxonomy Mapping
  • PLOVER
  • WASC