CWE-174 Variant Draft

Double Decoding of the Same Data

This vulnerability occurs when an application decodes the same piece of data twice in sequence. This double processing can bypass or neutralize security checks that happen after the first decode,…

Definition

What is CWE-174?

This vulnerability occurs when an application decodes the same piece of data twice in sequence. This double processing can bypass or neutralize security checks that happen after the first decode, leaving the system exposed.
Double decoding is dangerous because it breaks the expected data flow. Security mechanisms like input validation, sanitization, or intrusion detection are often placed after an initial decoding step, assuming the data is now in its canonical form. When a second, unexpected decode happens, it can transform the data again, rendering those intermediate protections useless and allowing malicious payloads to slip through. Developers can prevent this by establishing a strict, one-time decoding policy in a centralized location within the application's data pipeline. All incoming data should be decoded, validated, and sanitized once into a trusted, internal format before being passed to other components. This ensures security controls are applied to the final, operational form of the data and cannot be circumvented by further transformations.
Auswirkungen in der Praxis

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-174

  • CVE-2004-1315

    Forum software improperly URL decodes the highlight parameter when extracting text to highlight, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code by double-encoding the highlight value so that special characters are inserted into the result.

  • CVE-2004-1939

    XSS protection mechanism attempts to remove "/" that could be used to close tags, but it can be bypassed using double encoded slashes (%252F)

  • CVE-2001-0333

    Directory traversal using double encoding.

  • CVE-2004-1938

    "%2527" (double-encoded single quote) used in SQL injection.

  • CVE-2005-1945

    Double hex-encoded data.

  • CVE-2005-0054

    Browser executes HTML at higher privileges via URL with hostnames that are double hex encoded, which are decoded twice to generate a malicious hostname.

Wie Angreifer es ausnutzen

Angreiferpfad Schritt für Schritt

  1. 1

    Identifiziere einen Codepfad, der nicht vertrauenswürdige Eingaben ohne Validierung verarbeitet.

  2. 2

    Erzeuge eine Payload, die das unsichere Verhalten auslöst — Injection, Traversal, Overflow oder Logik-Missbrauch.

  3. 3

    Liefere die Payload über einen normalen Request aus und beobachte die Reaktion der Anwendung.

  4. 4

    Iteriere, bis die Antwort Daten preisgibt, Angreifer-Code ausführt oder Berechtigungen eskaliert.

Verwundbares Codebeispiel

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE hat kein Codebeispiel für diese CWE veröffentlicht. Das untenstehende Muster ist illustrativ — kanonische Referenzen findest du unter Ressourcen.

Verwundbar pseudo 
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Sicheres Codebeispiel

Secure pseudo

Sicher 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.
Präventions-Checkliste

How to prevent CWE-174

  • Architecture and Design Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
  • 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.
  • Implementation Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
  • Implementation Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
Erkennungssignale

How to detect CWE-174

SAST High

Führe statische Analyse (SAST) auf der Codebasis aus und suche im Datenfluss nach dem unsicheren Muster.

DAST Moderate

Führe dynamische Application-Security-Tests gegen den Live-Endpoint aus.

Runtime Moderate

Beobachte Runtime-Logs auf ungewöhnliche Exception-Traces, fehlerhafte Eingaben oder Versuche, Autorisierung zu umgehen.

Code review Moderate

Code Review: Markiere jeden neuen Code, der Eingaben von dieser Oberfläche ohne validierte Framework-Helper verarbeitet.

Plexicus Auto-Fix

Plexicus erkennt CWE-174 automatisch und öffnet in unter 60 Sekunden einen Fix-PR.

Codex Remedium scannt jeden Commit, identifiziert genau diese Schwachstelle und liefert einen reviewer-ready Pull Request mit dem Patch. Keine Tickets. Keine Hand-offs.

Demo anfordern Plexicus kostenlos testen
Häufig gestellte Fragen

Frequently asked questions

Was ist CWE-174?

This vulnerability occurs when an application decodes the same piece of data twice in sequence. This double processing can bypass or neutralize security checks that happen after the first decode, leaving the system exposed.

Wie gravierend ist CWE-174?

MITRE hat für diese Schwachstelle keine Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit veröffentlicht. Behandle sie als mittlere Auswirkung, bis dein Threat Model anderes belegt.

Welche Sprachen oder Plattformen sind von CWE-174 betroffen?

MITRE hat für diese CWE keine betroffenen Plattformen spezifiziert — sie kann in den meisten Anwendungs-Stacks auftreten.

Wie kann ich CWE-174 verhindern?

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

Wie erkennt und behebt Plexicus CWE-174?

Die SAST-Engine von Plexicus erkennt die Datenfluss-Signatur von CWE-174 bei jedem Commit. Bei einem Treffer öffnet unser Codex-Remedium-Agent einen Fix-PR mit korrigiertem Code, Tests und einer einzeiligen Zusammenfassung für den Reviewer.

Wo erfahre ich mehr über CWE-174?

MITRE veröffentlicht die kanonische Definition unter https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/174.html. Für ergänzende Hinweise kannst du auch die OWASP- und NIST-Dokumentation heranziehen.

Verwandte Schwachstellen

Weaknesses related to CWE-174

CWE-675 Parent

Multiple Operations on Resource in Single-Operation Context

This vulnerability occurs when a software component performs the same action on a resource multiple times, even though the action is…

CWE-1341 Sibling

Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle

This vulnerability occurs when a program incorrectly tries to close or release the same system resource—like memory, a file, or a network…

CWE-605 Sibling

Multiple Binds to the Same Port

This vulnerability occurs when a system's socket configuration allows multiple applications to bind to the same network port…

CWE-764 Sibling

Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource

This vulnerability occurs when a critical resource, such as a file, data structure, or connection, is locked more times than the software…

CWE-765 Sibling

Multiple Unlocks of a Critical Resource

This vulnerability occurs when a critical resource, like a lock or semaphore, is unlocked more times than it was locked, putting the…

Ressourcen

Further reading

Bereit, wenn du es bist

Schluss mit dem Bezahlen pro Entwickler.
Schließ den Kreislauf.

Plexicus ist die KI-native ASPM, die scannt, filtert, fixt, pentestet und erklärt — autonom. Unbegrenzte Entwickler, unbegrenzte Repos, Fair-Use-KI-Aktionen. Echter kostenloser Tarif, €269/mo jährlich, wenn du bereit bist.

Kostenlos starten Demo buchen