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
Path Traversal: '....//'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to properly sanitize '....//' sequences. Attackers can use this pattern to break out of the intended…
What is CWE-34?
Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-34
-
Mail server allows remote attackers to create arbitrary directories via a ".." or rename arbitrary files via a "....//" in user supplied parameters.
Trajeto do atacante passo a passo
- 1
Identificar um caminho de código que trata input não confiável sem validação.
- 2
Criar um payload que explora o comportamento inseguro — injeção, traversal, overflow ou abuso de lógica.
- 3
Entregar o payload através de um pedido normal e observar a reação da aplicação.
- 4
Iterar até que a resposta exponha dados, execute código do atacante ou escale privilégios.
Vulnerable pseudo
A MITRE não publicou um exemplo de código para este CWE. O padrão abaixo é ilustrativo — consulte os Recursos para referências canónicas.
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
// Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
return executeUnsafe(input);
} Secure pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
return executeWithGuards(safe);
} How to prevent CWE-34
- 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. When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434. Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.
- 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.
How to detect CWE-34
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
O Plexicus deteta automaticamente o CWE-34 e abre um PR de correção em menos de 60 segundos.
O Codex Remedium analisa cada commit, identifica esta fraqueza exata e entrega um pull request pronto para revisão com o patch. Sem tickets. Sem transferências.
Frequently asked questions
O que é o CWE-34?
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to properly sanitize '....//' sequences. Attackers can use this pattern to break out of the intended directory and access unauthorized files or folders elsewhere on the system.
Qual a gravidade do CWE-34?
A MITRE não publicou uma classificação de probabilidade de exploração para esta fraqueza. Trate-a como impacto médio até o seu modelo de ameaças provar o contrário.
Que linguagens ou plataformas são afetadas pelo CWE-34?
A MITRE não especificou as plataformas afetadas por este CWE — pode aplicar-se à maioria das stacks de aplicações.
Como posso prevenir o CWE-34?
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…
Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-34?
O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-34 em cada commit. Quando é encontrada uma correspondência, o nosso agente Codex Remedium abre um PR de correção com o código corrigido, testes e um resumo de uma linha para o revisor.
Onde posso saber mais sobre o CWE-34?
A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/34.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.
Weaknesses related to CWE-34
Relative Path Traversal
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user-supplied input without properly validating or sanitizing it.…
Path Traversal: '../filedir'
Path traversal, often called directory traversal, occurs when an application builds a file path using user input without properly blocking…
Path Traversal: '/../filedir'
This vulnerability, often called directory traversal, occurs when an application builds a file path using user input without properly…
Path Traversal: '/dir/../filename'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds a file path using user input but fails to properly block directory traversal…
Path Traversal: 'dir/../../filename'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to properly block sequences like…
Path Traversal: '..\filedir'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds a file path using user input but fails to block or properly handle '..\' sequences.…
Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to block '\..\filename' sequences. Attackers…
Path Traversal: '\dir\..\filename'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to properly sanitize sequences like…
Path Traversal: 'dir\..\..\filename'
This vulnerability occurs when an application builds file paths using user input but fails to properly block sequences like…
Further reading
- MITRE — CWE-34 oficial https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/34.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
Pare de pagar por desenvolvedor.
Comece a fechar o ciclo.
O Plexicus é o ASPM nativo de IA que verifica, filtra, corrige, pentesta e explica — de forma autónoma. Programadores ilimitados, repos ilimitados, ações de IA de utilização justa. Nível gratuito real, €269/mo anual quando estiver pronto.