Multiple Interpretations of UI Input |
Weakness ID: 450 (Weakness Base) | Status: Draft |
Description Summary
Phase: Architecture and Design Assume all input is malicious. Use a standard input validation mechanism to validate all input for length, type, syntax, and business rules before accepting the data to be displayed or stored. Use an "accept known good" validation strategy. Input (specifically, unexpected CRLFs) that is not appropriate should not be processed into HTTP headers. |
Use and specify a strong input/output encoding (such as ISO 8859-1 or UTF 8). |
Do not rely exclusively on blacklist validation to detect malicious input or to encode output. There are too many variants to encode a character; you're likely to miss some variants. |
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated. Make sure that your application does not decode the same input twice. Such errors could be used to bypass whitelist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. |
Nature | Type | ID | Name | View(s) this relationship pertains to |
---|---|---|---|---|
ChildOf | Weakness Base | 357 | Insufficient UI Warning of Dangerous Operations | Research Concepts (primary)1000 |
ChildOf | Category | 445 | User Interface Errors | Development Concepts (primary)699 |
Mapped Taxonomy Name | Node ID | Fit | Mapped Node Name |
---|---|---|---|
PLOVER | Multiple Interpretations of UI Input |
Submissions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Submission Date | Submitter | Organization | Source | |
PLOVER | Externally Mined | |||
Modifications | ||||
Modification Date | Modifier | Organization | Source | |
2008-07-01 | Eric Dalci | Cigital | External | |
updated Potential Mitigations, Time of Introduction | ||||
2008-09-08 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Relationships, Taxonomy Mappings | ||||
2009-07-27 | CWE Content Team | MITRE | Internal | |
updated Potential Mitigations |