According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
CWE-41 Base Incomplet
Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence
This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly handle different text representations that refer to the same file or directory on the system. Attackers can use special characters or…
Définition
What is CWE-41?
This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly handle different text representations that refer to the same file or directory on the system. Attackers can use special characters or alternative naming conventions to bypass security checks and access restricted files.
Path equivalence flaws happen because security logic often checks for only one specific name or path format. Attackers exploit this by using alternative representations—like trailing dots, extra slashes, or case variations—that the operating system treats as identical but the application's filters miss. This allows them to read sensitive files they shouldn't have access to, differing from path traversal where the attacker targets a completely different file.
Detecting these subtle logic gaps manually is challenging, especially in complex codebases. While SAST tools can flag the pattern, Plexicus uses AI to analyze the specific context and generate the precise code fix needed to normalize and validate all path inputs, helping teams remediate these flaws efficiently across their entire application portfolio.
Impact réel
Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-41
-
Source code disclosure using trailing dot
-
Source code disclosure using trailing dot
-
Source code disclosure using trailing dot or trailing encoding space "%20"
-
Source code disclosure using trailing dot
-
Bypass directory access restrictions using trailing dot in URL
-
Bypass directory access restrictions using trailing dot in URL
-
Bypass check for ".lnk" extension using ".lnk."
-
Source disclosure via trailing encoded space "%20"
Comment les attaquants l'exploitent
Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape
- 1
Identifier un chemin de code qui traite des entrées non fiables sans validation.
- 2
Élaborer une charge utile qui exploite le comportement non sécurisé — injection, traversal, débordement ou abus de logique.
- 3
Délivrer la charge utile via une requête normale et observer la réaction de l'application.
- 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.
// 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
// 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-41
- 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.
Signaux de détection
How to detect CWE-41
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Plexicus détecte automatiquement CWE-41 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 Qu'est-ce que CWE-41 ?
Quelle est la gravité de CWE-41 ?
Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-41 ?
Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-41 ?
Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-41 ?
Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-41 ?
Frequently asked questions
Qu'est-ce que CWE-41 ?
This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly handle different text representations that refer to the same file or directory on the system. Attackers can use special characters or alternative naming conventions to bypass security checks and access restricted files.
Quelle est la gravité de CWE-41 ?
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-41 ?
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-41 ?
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-41 ?
Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-41 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-41 ?
MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/41.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.
Faiblesses associées
Weaknesses related to CWE-41
CWE-706 Parent
Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference
This vulnerability occurs when software uses a name, path, or reference to access a resource, but that identifier points to something…
CWE-178 Frère
Improper Handling of Case Sensitivity
This vulnerability occurs when software fails to consistently handle uppercase and lowercase letters when checking or accessing resources,…
CWE-22 Frère
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal')
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds a file path using user input but fails to properly validate it, allowing an attacker…
CWE-386 Frère
Symbolic Name not Mapping to Correct Object
This vulnerability occurs when a program uses a fixed symbolic name (like a constant or identifier) to refer to an object, but that name…
CWE-59 Frère
Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')
This vulnerability occurs when an application uses a filename to access a file but fails to properly check if that name points to a…
CWE-66 Frère
Improper Handling of File Names that Identify Virtual Resources
This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly processes a filename that points to a 'virtual' resource—like a device, pipe, or…
CWE-827 Frère
Improper Control of Document Type Definition
This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly restrict which Document Type Definitions (DTDs) can be referenced during…
CWE-98 Frère
Improper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion')
This vulnerability occurs when a PHP application uses unvalidated or insufficiently restricted user input directly within file inclusion…
CWE-42 Enfant
Path Equivalence: 'filename.' (Trailing Dot)
This vulnerability occurs when a system accepts file or directory paths that end with a dot (like 'file.txt.' or 'folder.') without…
Ressources
Further reading
- MITRE — CWE-41 officiel https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/41.html
- State-of-the-Art Resources (SOAR) for Software Vulnerability Detection, Test, and Evaluation https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/s/st/stateoftheart-resources-soar-for-software-vulnerability-detection-test-and-evaluation/p-5061.ashx
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.