CWE Glossary Definition |
👁 x
|
CWE-142: Improper Neutralization of Value Delimiters
|
Weakness ID: 142
Vulnerability Mapping:
ALLOWED
This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction:
Variant
Variant - a weakness that is linked to a certain type of product, typically involving a specific language or technology. More specific than a Base weakness. Variant level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 3 to 5 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
|
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as value delimiters when they are sent to a downstream component.
As data is parsed, an injected/absent/malformed delimiter may cause the process to take unexpected actions.
👁 Section Help This table specifies different individual consequences
associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is
violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an
adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about
how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other
consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be
exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to
achieve a different impact.
| Impact |
Details |
|
Unexpected State
|
Scope: Integrity
|
👁 +
Potential Mitigations
| Phase(s) |
Mitigation |
|
Developers should anticipate that value delimiters will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
|
|
Implementation
|
Strategy: Input Validation
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
|
Strategy: Output Encoding
While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection ( CWE-88).
|
|
Implementation
|
Strategy: Input Validation
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.
|
👁 Section Help
This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this
weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to
similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition,
relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user
may want to explore.
👁 +
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
| Nature |
Type |
ID |
Name |
| ChildOf |
👁 Base
Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
|
140
|
Improper Neutralization of Delimiters
|
👁 +
Modes
Of Introduction
👁 Section Help The different Modes of Introduction provide information
about how and when this
weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which
introduction
may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the
given
phase.
| Phase |
Note |
| Implementation |
👁 + Selected Observed
Examples
Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this
weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.
| Reference |
Description |
|
|
Multiple internal space, insufficient quoting - program does not use proper delimiter between values.
|
👁 +
Weakness Ordinalities
| Ordinality |
Description |
|
Primary
|
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
|
👁 Section Help This MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that
reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a
weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
| Nature |
Type |
ID |
Name |
| MemberOf |
👁 Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. |
990
|
SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command
|
| MemberOf |
👁 Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. |
1407
|
Comprehensive Categorization: Improper Neutralization
|
👁 +
Vulnerability Mapping Notes
|
Usage
|
ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
|
| Reason |
Acceptable-Use
|
|
Rationale
|
This CWE entry is at the Variant 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.
|
| Mapped Taxonomy Name |
Node ID |
Fit |
Mapped Node Name |
| PLOVER |
Value Delimiter |
| Software Fault Patterns |
SFP24 |
Tainted input to command |
| [REF-62] |
Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 8, "Embedded Delimiters", Page 408. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
|
👁 + Submissions |
| Submission Date |
Submitter |
Organization |
2006-07-19
(CWE Draft 3, 2006-07-19)
|
PLOVER |
👁 + Modifications |
| Modification Date |
Modifier |
Organization |
2025-12-11
(CWE 4.19, 2025-12-11)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Weakness_Ordinalities
|
2023-06-29
(CWE 4.12, 2023-06-29)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Mapping_Notes
|
2023-04-27
(CWE 4.11, 2023-04-27)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Relationships
|
2023-01-31
(CWE 4.10, 2023-01-31)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
|
2020-06-25
(CWE 4.1, 2020-06-25)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations
|
2020-02-24
(CWE 4.0, 2020-02-24)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
|
2017-11-08
(CWE 3.0, 2017-11-08)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Applicable_Platforms
|
2017-05-03
(CWE 2.11, 2017-05-05)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations
|
2014-07-30
(CWE 2.8, 2014-07-31)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
|
2012-10-30
(CWE 2.3, 2012-10-30)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations
|
2012-05-11
(CWE 2.2, 2012-05-15)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated References, Relationships
|
2011-06-27
(CWE 2.0, 2011-06-27)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Common_Consequences
|
2011-06-01
(CWE 1.13, 2011-06-01)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Common_Consequences
|
2011-03-29
(CWE 1.12, 2011-03-30)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations
|
2010-04-05
(CWE 1.8.1, 2010-04-05)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Description, Name
|
2009-07-27
(CWE 1.5, 2009-07-27)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations
|
2008-09-08
(CWE 1.0, 2008-09-09)
|
CWE Content Team |
MITRE |
|
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
|
2008-07-01
(CWE 1.0, 2008-09-09)
|
Eric Dalci |
Cigital |
|
updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
|
👁 + Previous Entry Names |
| Change Date |
Previous Entry Name |
| 2010-04-05
|
Failure to Sanitize Value Delimiters |
| 2008-04-11
|
Value Delimiter |
More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter.
|