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.)
CWE-90 Base Draft
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds an LDAP query using untrusted user input without properly sanitizing it. An attacker can inject special characters or commands to alter the…
Definition
What is CWE-90?
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds an LDAP query using untrusted user input without properly sanitizing it. An attacker can inject special characters or commands to alter the query's logic, potentially gaining unauthorized access to, modifying, or extracting sensitive directory information.
LDAP Injection happens much like SQL injection, but targets Lightweight Directory Access Protocol queries. When user input from a form, URL parameter, or API request is directly concatenated into an LDAP search filter (like `(cn=` + userInput + `)`), an attacker can insert characters like `*`, `(`, `)`, `\`, or `null` to break the query's structure. This allows them to bypass authentication, escalate privileges, or dump the entire contents of the directory by creating filters like `*)(uid=*))(|(uid=*` that always return results.
To prevent this, developers should never construct LDAP filters by simple string concatenation. Instead, use parameterized queries or the encoding functions provided by your LDAP library (like `escapeLDAPSearchFilter` in Java or `ldap_escape` in PHP) to properly neutralize special characters. Always apply the principle of least privilege to the LDAP binding account and validate all input against a strict allow-list of expected characters before it reaches the query builder.
Real-world impact
Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-90
-
Chain: authentication routine in Go-based agile development product does not escape user name (CWE-116), allowing LDAP injection (CWE-90)
-
Server does not properly escape LDAP queries, which allows remote attackers to cause a DoS and possibly conduct an LDAP injection attack.
How attackers exploit it
Step-by-step attacker path
- 1
Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.
- 2
Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.
- 3
Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.
- 4
Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.
Vulnerable code example
Vulnerable Java
The code below constructs an LDAP query using user input address data:
context = new InitialDirContext(env);
String searchFilter = "StreetAddress=" + address;
NamingEnumeration answer = context.search(searchBase, searchFilter, searchCtls); Secure code example
Secure pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
return executeWithGuards(safe);
} What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Prevention checklist
How to prevent CWE-90
- 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.
Detection signals
How to detect CWE-90
CWE-90
Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.
Plexicus turns CWE catalogs into evidence: every CWE-pattern is matched against your real code graph, reach is proven on a sandbox clone, and verified findings ship as reviewed PRs.
Frequently asked questions What is CWE-90?
How serious is CWE-90?
What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-90?
How can I prevent CWE-90?
How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-90?
Where can I learn more about CWE-90?
Frequently asked questions
What is CWE-90?
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds an LDAP query using untrusted user input without properly sanitizing it. An attacker can inject special characters or commands to alter the query's logic, potentially gaining unauthorized access to, modifying, or extracting sensitive directory information.
How serious is CWE-90?
MITRE has not published a likelihood-of-exploit rating for this weakness. Treat it as medium-impact until your threat model proves otherwise.
What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-90?
MITRE lists the following affected platforms: Database Server.
How can I prevent CWE-90?
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…
How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-90?
Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-90 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.
Where can I learn more about CWE-90?
MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/90.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.
Related weaknesses
Weaknesses related to CWE-90
CWE-943 Parent
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds a query for a data store (like a database) but fails to properly sanitize…
CWE-643 Sibling
Improper Neutralization of Data within XPath Expressions ('XPath Injection')
XPath Injection occurs when an application uses unvalidated user input to build an XPath query for an XML database. Without proper…
CWE-652 Sibling
Improper Neutralization of Data within XQuery Expressions ('XQuery Injection')
XQuery Injection occurs when an application uses unvalidated user input to build an XQuery expression for querying an XML database.…
CWE-89 Sibling
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection')
SQL Injection occurs when an application builds a database query using untrusted user input without properly sanitizing it. This allows an…
Ready to validate what matters?
Ready to validate what matters?
Plexicus is Proof-Driven AppSec: validated findings, contextual understanding, and reviewed remediation — anchored in evidence, scoped with you.