|
Weakness ID: 99
Vulnerability Mapping:
ALLOWED
This CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review
(with careful review of mapping notes)
Abstraction: Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. |
A resource injection issue occurs when the following two conditions are met:
This may enable an attacker to access or modify otherwise protected system resources.
| Insecure Direct Object Reference |
OWASP uses this term, although it is effectively the same as resource injection.
|
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 |
|---|---|
|
Read Application Data; Modify Application Data; Read Files or Directories; Modify Files or Directories |
Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity
An attacker could gain access to or modify sensitive data or system resources. This could allow access to protected files or directories including configuration files and files containing sensitive information.
|
| Phase(s) | Mitigation |
|---|---|
|
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, it can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. |
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 |
|
74 | Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection') |
| ParentOf |
|
641 | Improper Restriction of Names for Files and Other Resources |
| ParentOf |
|
694 | Use of Multiple Resources with Duplicate Identifier |
| ParentOf |
|
914 | Improper Control of Dynamically-Identified Variables |
| PeerOf |
|
706 | Use of Incorrectly-Resolved Name or Reference |
| CanAlsoBe |
|
73 | External Control of File Name or Path |
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
| Nature | Type | ID | Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| MemberOf |
|
1019 | Validate Inputs |
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 |
|---|---|
| Architecture and Design | |
| Implementation | REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic. |
This listing shows possible areas for which the given
weakness could appear. These
may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms,
Technologies,
or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given
weakness appears for that instance.
| Languages |
Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence) |
Example 1
The following Java code uses input from an HTTP request to create a file name. The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a file name such as "../../tomcat/conf/server.xml", which causes the application to delete one of its own configuration files.
Example 2
The following code uses input from the command line to determine which file to open and echo back to the user. If the program runs with privileges and malicious users can create soft links to the file, they can use the program to read the first part of any file on the system.
The kind of resource the data affects indicates the kind of content that may be dangerous. For example, data containing special characters like period, slash, and backslash, are risky when used in methods that interact with the file system. (Resource injection, when it is related to file system resources, sometimes goes by the name "path manipulation.") Similarly, data that contains URLs and URIs is risky for functions that create remote connections.
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 |
|---|---|
|
chain: mobile OS verifies cryptographic signature of file in an archive, but then installs a different file with the same name that is also listed in the archive.
|
| Ordinality | Description |
|---|---|
|
Primary
|
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
|
| Method | Details |
|---|---|
|
Automated Static Analysis |
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness: High |
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 | 813 | OWASP Top Ten 2010 Category A4 - Insecure Direct Object References | |
| MemberOf | 884 | CWE Cross-section | |
| MemberOf | 932 | OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A4 - Insecure Direct Object References | |
| MemberOf | 990 | SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command | |
| MemberOf | 1005 | 7PK - Input Validation and Representation | |
| MemberOf | 1131 | CISQ Quality Measures (2016) - Security | |
| MemberOf | 1308 | CISQ Quality Measures - Security | |
| MemberOf | 1340 | CISQ Data Protection Measures | |
| MemberOf | 1347 | OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A03:2021 - Injection | |
| MemberOf | 1409 | Comprehensive Categorization: Injection | |
| MemberOf | 1440 | OWASP Top Ten 2025 Category A05:2025 - Injection |
| Usage |
ALLOWED-WITH-REVIEW
(this CWE ID could be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities in limited situations requiring careful review)
|
| Reason | Abstraction |
|
Rationale |
This CWE entry is a Class and might have Base-level children that would be more appropriate |
|
Comments |
Examine children of this entry to see if there is a better fit |
Relationship
Maintenance
| Mapped Taxonomy Name | Node ID | Fit | Mapped Node Name |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Pernicious Kingdoms | Resource Injection | ||
| Software Fault Patterns | SFP24 | Tainted input to command | |
| OMG ASCSM | ASCSM-CWE-99 |
| [REF-6] |
Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess and Gary McGraw. "Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors". NIST Workshop on Software Security Assurance Tools Techniques and Metrics. NIST. 2005-11-07.
<https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf>. |
| [REF-962] |
Object Management Group (OMG). "Automated Source Code Security Measure (ASCSM)". ASCSM-CWE-99. 2016-01.
<http://www.omg.org/spec/ASCSM/1.0/>. |
|
Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE™) and the associated references from this website are subject to the Terms of Use. CWE is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and managed by the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI) which is operated by The MITRE Corporation (MITRE). Copyright © 2006–2026, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. |
||
