CWE-172 Classe Brouillon

Encoding Error

This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly transforms data between different formats, leading to corrupted or misinterpreted information that can break functionality or create security gaps.

Définition

What is CWE-172?

This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly transforms data between different formats, leading to corrupted or misinterpreted information that can break functionality or create security gaps.
Encoding errors happen when a system fails to properly convert data from one character set or format to another, such as between UTF-8, ASCII, or URL encoding. This often surfaces when handling user input, transferring data across systems, or preparing information for display. The result is 'mojibake' (garbled text), lost data, or unexpected characters that can crash applications, corrupt data storage, or bypass validation checks. For developers, the core issue is assuming data will always be in a single, expected format. To prevent this, explicitly define and validate character encodings at every system boundary—when reading input, sending output, or storing data. Use standardized, well-tested libraries for all encoding/decoding operations instead of custom logic, and consistently apply these transformations across your entire application stack to maintain data integrity.
Impact réel

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-172

  • 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.

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

  • Server allows a remote attacker to obtain source code of ASP files via a URL encoded with Unicode.

  • Hex-encoded path traversal variants - "%2e%2e", "%2e%2e%2f", "%5c%2e%2e"

Comment les attaquants l'exploitent

Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape

  1. 1

    Identifier un chemin de code qui traite des entrées non fiables sans validation.

  2. 2

    Élaborer une charge utile qui exploite le comportement non sécurisé — injection, traversal, débordement ou abus de logique.

  3. 3

    Délivrer la charge utile via une requête normale et observer la réaction de l'application.

  4. 4

    Itérer jusqu'à ce que la réponse divulgue des données, exécute le code de l'attaquant ou élève les privilèges.

Exemple de code vulnérable

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE n'a pas publié d'exemple de code pour ce CWE. Le motif ci-dessous est illustratif — voir Ressources pour les références canoniques.

Vulnérable pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Exemple de code sécurisé

Secure pseudo

Sécurisé 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.
Liste de contrôle de prévention

How to prevent CWE-172

  • 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 While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).
  • 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.
Signaux de détection

How to detect CWE-172

SAST High

Exécuter une analyse statique (SAST) sur le code source à la recherche du motif non sécurisé dans le flux de données.

DAST Moderate

Exécuter des tests de sécurité applicative dynamique (DAST) contre le point de terminaison en ligne.

Runtime Moderate

Surveiller les journaux runtime pour détecter des traces d'exception inhabituelles, des entrées malformées ou des tentatives de contournement d'autorisation.

Code review Moderate

Revue de code : signaler tout nouveau code qui traite les entrées de cette surface sans utiliser les helpers du framework validés.

Correction automatique Plexicus

Plexicus détecte automatiquement CWE-172 et ouvre une PR de correction en moins de 60 secondes.

Codex Remedium analyse chaque commit, identifie cette faiblesse précise et livre une pull request prête à être relue avec le correctif. Pas de tickets. Pas de transferts.

Questions fréquentes

Frequently asked questions

Qu'est-ce que CWE-172 ?

This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly transforms data between different formats, leading to corrupted or misinterpreted information that can break functionality or create security gaps.

Quelle est la gravité de CWE-172 ?

MITRE n'a pas publié de note de probabilité d'exploitation pour cette faiblesse. Traitez-la comme un impact moyen jusqu'à ce que votre modèle de menace prouve le contraire.

Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-172 ?

MITRE n'a pas spécifié les plateformes affectées pour ce CWE — il peut s'appliquer à la plupart des stacks applicatives.

Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-172 ?

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…

Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-172 ?

Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-172 à chaque commit. Lorsqu'une correspondance est trouvée, notre agent Codex Remedium ouvre une PR de correction avec le code corrigé, les tests et un résumé d'une ligne pour le relecteur.

Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-172 ?

MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/172.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.

Faiblesses associées

Weaknesses related to CWE-172

CWE-707 Parent

Improper Neutralization

This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly validate or sanitize structured data before it's received from an external…

CWE-116 Frère

Improper Encoding or Escaping of Output

This vulnerability occurs when an application builds a structured message—like a query, command, or request—for another component but…

CWE-138 Frère

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements

This vulnerability occurs when an application accepts external input but fails to properly sanitize special characters or syntax that have…

CWE-1426 Frère

Improper Validation of Generative AI Output

This vulnerability occurs when an application uses a generative AI model (like an LLM) but fails to properly check the AI's output before…

CWE-170 Frère

Improper Null Termination

This weakness occurs when software fails to properly end a string or array with the required null character or equivalent terminator.

CWE-182 Frère

Collapse of Data into Unsafe Value

This vulnerability occurs when an application's data filtering or transformation process incorrectly merges or simplifies information,…

CWE-20 Frère

Improper Input Validation

This vulnerability occurs when an application accepts data from an external source but fails to properly verify that the data is safe and…

CWE-228 Frère

Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to properly reject or process input that doesn't follow the expected format or structure,…

CWE-240 Frère

Improper Handling of Inconsistent Structural Elements

This vulnerability occurs when a system fails to properly manage situations where related data structures or elements should match but are…

Prêt quand vous l'êtes

Arrêtez de payer par développeur.
Commencez à fermer la boucle.

Plexicus est l'ASPM natif IA qui scanne, filtre, corrige, penteste et explique — de façon autonome. Développeurs illimités, dépôts illimités, actions IA à usage équitable. Vrai niveau gratuit, €269/mo annuel quand vous êtes prêt.