Logo
-

Byte Open Security

(ByteOS Network)

Log In

Sign Up

ByteOS

Security
Vulnerability Details
Registries
Custom Views
Weaknesses
Attack Patterns
Filters & Tools
CWE-1288:Improper Validation of Consistency within Input
Weakness ID:1288
Version:v4.17
Weakness Name:Improper Validation of Consistency within Input
Vulnerability Mapping:Allowed
Abstraction:Base
Structure:Simple
Status:Incomplete
Likelihood of Exploit:
DetailsContent HistoryObserved CVE ExamplesReports
▼Description

The product receives a complex input with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually consistent.

▼Extended Description

Some input data can be structured with multiple elements or fields that must be consistent with each other, e.g. a number-of-items field that is followed by the expected number of elements. When such complex inputs are inconsistent, attackers could trigger unexpected errors, cause incorrect actions to take place, or exploit latent vulnerabilities.

▼Alternate Terms
▼Relationships
Relevant to the view"Research Concepts - (1000)"
NatureMappingTypeIDName
ChildOfDiscouragedC20Improper Input Validation
Nature: ChildOf
Mapping: Discouraged
Type: Class
ID: 20
Name: Improper Input Validation
▼Memberships
NatureMappingTypeIDName
MemberOfProhibitedC1215Data Validation Issues
MemberOfProhibitedC1406Comprehensive Categorization: Improper Input Validation
Nature: MemberOf
Mapping: Prohibited
Type:Category
ID: 1215
Name: Data Validation Issues
Nature: MemberOf
Mapping: Prohibited
Type:Category
ID: 1406
Name: Comprehensive Categorization: Improper Input Validation
▼Tags
NatureMappingTypeIDName
MemberOfProhibitedBSBOSS-279Input Validation Strategy
MemberOfProhibitedBSBOSS-294Not Language-Specific Weaknesses
MemberOfProhibitedBSBOSS-326Varies by Context (impact)
Nature: MemberOf
Mapping: Prohibited
Type:BOSSView
ID: BOSS-279
Name: Input Validation Strategy
Nature: MemberOf
Mapping: Prohibited
Type:BOSSView
ID: BOSS-294
Name: Not Language-Specific Weaknesses
Nature: MemberOf
Mapping: Prohibited
Type:BOSSView
ID: BOSS-326
Name: Varies by Context (impact)
▼Relevant To View
Relevant to the view"Software Development - (699)"
NatureMappingTypeIDName
MemberOfProhibitedC1215Data Validation Issues
Nature: MemberOf
Mapping: Prohibited
Type: Category
ID: 1215
Name: Data Validation Issues
▼Background Detail

▼Common Consequences
ScopeLikelihoodImpactNote
OtherN/AVaries by Context
N/A
Scope: Other
Likelihood: N/A
Impact: Varies by Context
Note:
N/A
▼Potential Mitigations
Phase:Implementation
Mitigation ID: MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
Effectiveness: High
Description:

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.

Note:

▼Modes Of Introduction
Phase: Implementation
Note:

N/A

▼Applicable Platforms
Languages
Class: Not Language-Specific(Often Prevalence)
▼Demonstrative Examples
▼Observed Examples
ReferenceDescription
CVE-2018-16733
product does not validate that the start block appears before the end block
CVE-2006-3790
size field that is inconsistent with packet size leads to buffer over-read
CVE-2008-4114
system crash with offset value that is inconsistent with packet size
Reference: CVE-2018-16733
Description:
product does not validate that the start block appears before the end block
Reference: CVE-2006-3790
Description:
size field that is inconsistent with packet size leads to buffer over-read
Reference: CVE-2008-4114
Description:
system crash with offset value that is inconsistent with packet size
▼Affected Resources
    ▼Functional Areas
      ▼Weakness Ordinalities
      OrdinalityDescription
      ▼Detection Methods
      ▼Vulnerability Mapping Notes
      Usage:Allowed
      Reason:Acceptable-Use
      Rationale:

      This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

      Comments:

      Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

      Suggestions:
      ▼Notes
      Maintenance

      This entry is still under development and will continue to see updates and content improvements.

      N/A

      ▼Taxonomy Mappings
      Taxonomy NameEntry IDFitEntry Name
      ▼Related Attack Patterns
      IDName
      ▼References
      Details not found