COMMON WEAKNESS ENUMERATIONIncomplete

CWE-34

Path Traversal: '....//'

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '....//' (doubled dot dot slash) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.

Abstraction

Variant

Structure

Simple

Likelihood of Exploit

Medium

Understand the problem

What is the problem?

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '....//' (doubled dot dot slash) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.

Extended description

This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory. The '....//' manipulation is useful for bypassing some path traversal protection schemes. If "../" is filtered in a sequential fashion, as done by some regular expression engines, then "....//" can collapse into the "../" unsafe value (CWE-182). It could also be useful when ".." is removed, if the operating system treats "//" and "/" as equivalent.

Root cause

How and when does the problem arise?

Lifecycle phase

Implementation

Risk

What does successful exploitation lead to?

Read Files or DirectoriesModify Files or Directories

Affected security scopes: Confidentiality, Integrity

Defence

How is it prevented and fixed?

Implementation

Input Validation

Detail
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.

Effectiveness: High

Implementation

Input Validation

Detail
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.

Verification

How is it detected?

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

SOAR Partial
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

Architecture or Design Review

High
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
CWE-34: Common Weakness Enumeration Entry CWE-34 · DayBreach Sözlük · DayBreach