CWE-174 Variante Borrador

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,…

Definición

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.
Impacto en el mundo real

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.

Cómo lo explotan los atacantes

Ruta del atacante paso a paso

  1. 1

    Identifica una ruta de código que maneje entrada no confiable sin validación.

  2. 2

    Crea un payload que ejercite el comportamiento inseguro — inyección, traversal, overflow o abuso de lógica.

  3. 3

    Envía el payload a través de una solicitud normal y observa la reacción de la aplicación.

  4. 4

    Itera hasta que la respuesta filtre datos, ejecute código del atacante o escale privilegios.

Ejemplo de código vulnerable

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE no ha publicado un ejemplo de código para esta CWE. El patrón siguiente es ilustrativo — consulta Recursos para referencias canónicas.

Vulnerable pseudo 
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Ejemplo de código seguro

Secure pseudo

Seguro 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.
Lista de prevención

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.
Señales de detección

How to detect CWE-174

SAST High

Ejecuta análisis estático (SAST) sobre el código buscando el patrón inseguro en el flujo de datos.

DAST Moderate

Ejecuta pruebas dinámicas de seguridad de aplicaciones (DAST) contra el endpoint en vivo.

Runtime Moderate

Vigila los logs en tiempo de ejecución para detectar trazas de excepción inusuales, entradas malformadas o intentos de bypass de autorización.

Code review Moderate

Revisión de código: marca cualquier código nuevo que maneje entrada desde esta superficie sin usar los helpers validados del framework.

Auto-corrección de Plexicus

Plexicus detecta automáticamente CWE-174 y abre un PR de corrección en menos de 60 segundos.

Codex Remedium escanea cada commit, identifica esta debilidad concreta y entrega un pull request listo para revisión con el parche. Sin tickets. Sin traspasos.

Solicitar demo Probar Plexicus gratis
Preguntas frecuentes

Frequently asked questions

¿Qué es 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.

¿Qué gravedad tiene CWE-174?

MITRE no ha publicado una calificación de probabilidad de explotación para esta debilidad. Trátala como de impacto medio hasta que tu modelo de amenazas demuestre lo contrario.

¿Qué lenguajes o plataformas se ven afectados por CWE-174?

MITRE no ha especificado plataformas afectadas para esta CWE — puede aplicar a la mayoría de los stacks de aplicaciones.

¿Cómo puedo prevenir CWE-174?

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…

¿Cómo detecta y corrige Plexicus CWE-174?

El motor SAST de Plexicus detecta la firma de flujo de datos para CWE-174 en cada commit. Cuando hay coincidencia, nuestro agente Codex Remedium abre un PR de corrección con el código corregido, las pruebas y un resumen de una línea para el revisor.

¿Dónde puedo aprender más sobre CWE-174?

MITRE publica la definición canónica en https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/174.html. También puedes consultar la documentación de OWASP y NIST para guías relacionadas.

Debilidades relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-174

CWE-675 Padre

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 Hermano

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 Hermano

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 Hermano

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 Hermano

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…

Recursos

Further reading

Listo cuando tú lo estés

Deja de pagar por desarrollador.
Empieza a cerrar el bucle.

Plexicus es el ASPM nativo de IA que escanea, filtra, corrige, pentestea y explica — de forma autónoma. Desarrolladores ilimitados, repos ilimitados, acciones de IA de uso justo. Nivel gratuito real, €269/mo anual cuando estés listo.

Comenzar gratis Reservar una demo