CWE-1066 Base Incomplete

Missing Serialization Control Element

This weakness occurs when a class or data structure is marked as serializable but lacks the required control methods to properly handle the serialization and deserialization process.

Definition

What is CWE-1066?

This weakness occurs when a class or data structure is marked as serializable but lacks the required control methods to properly handle the serialization and deserialization process.
When a class is declared serializable (like using `Serializable` in .NET or implementing `java.io.Serializable` in Java) but doesn't define the necessary serialization control methods, it can cause runtime exceptions and unpredictable behavior. This happens because the default serialization mechanism may be insufficient for your object's specific state or dependencies, leading to crashes or corrupted data when objects are saved and restored. If an attacker can trigger this flawed serialization path, these reliability issues can become security vulnerabilities. For example, an unhandled exception could crash a service, leading to denial of service, or improper deserialization might leave the application in an inconsistent, exploitable state. Always implement the proper control methods, such as `readObject` and `writeObject` in Java or `ISerializable` methods in .NET, to explicitly manage how your object's data is streamed.
Auswirkungen in der Praxis

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-1066

Bisher sind in MITREs Katalog keine öffentlichen CVE-Referenzen mit dieser CWE verknüpft.

Wie Angreifer es ausnutzen

Angreiferpfad Schritt für Schritt

  1. 1

    Identifiziere einen Codepfad, der nicht vertrauenswürdige Eingaben ohne Validierung verarbeitet.

  2. 2

    Erzeuge eine Payload, die das unsichere Verhalten auslöst — Injection, Traversal, Overflow oder Logik-Missbrauch.

  3. 3

    Liefere die Payload über einen normalen Request aus und beobachte die Reaktion der Anwendung.

  4. 4

    Iteriere, bis die Antwort Daten preisgibt, Angreifer-Code ausführt oder Berechtigungen eskaliert.

Verwundbares Codebeispiel

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE hat kein Codebeispiel für diese CWE veröffentlicht. Das untenstehende Muster ist illustrativ — kanonische Referenzen findest du unter Ressourcen.

Verwundbar pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Sicheres Codebeispiel

Secure pseudo

Sicher pseudo
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Präventions-Checkliste

How to prevent CWE-1066

  • Architecture Use safe-by-default frameworks and APIs that prevent the unsafe pattern from being expressible.
  • Implementation Validate input at trust boundaries; use allowlists, not denylists.
  • Implementation Apply the principle of least privilege to credentials, file paths, and runtime permissions.
  • Testing Cover this weakness in CI: SAST rules + targeted unit tests for the data flow.
  • Operation Monitor logs for the runtime signals listed in the next section.
Erkennungssignale

How to detect CWE-1066

SAST High

Führe statische Analyse (SAST) auf der Codebasis aus und suche im Datenfluss nach dem unsicheren Muster.

DAST Moderate

Führe dynamische Application-Security-Tests gegen den Live-Endpoint aus.

Runtime Moderate

Beobachte Runtime-Logs auf ungewöhnliche Exception-Traces, fehlerhafte Eingaben oder Versuche, Autorisierung zu umgehen.

Code review Moderate

Code Review: Markiere jeden neuen Code, der Eingaben von dieser Oberfläche ohne validierte Framework-Helper verarbeitet.

CWE-1066

Don't catalog this weakness. Prove it's reachable.

Plexicus turns CWE catalogs into evidence: every CWE-pattern is matched against your real code graph, reach is proven on a sandbox clone, and verified findings ship as reviewed PRs.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Frequently asked questions

Was ist CWE-1066?

This weakness occurs when a class or data structure is marked as serializable but lacks the required control methods to properly handle the serialization and deserialization process.

Wie gravierend ist CWE-1066?

MITRE hat für diese Schwachstelle keine Exploit-Wahrscheinlichkeit veröffentlicht. Behandle sie als mittlere Auswirkung, bis dein Threat Model anderes belegt.

Welche Sprachen oder Plattformen sind von CWE-1066 betroffen?

MITRE hat für diese CWE keine betroffenen Plattformen spezifiziert — sie kann in den meisten Anwendungs-Stacks auftreten.

Wie kann ich CWE-1066 verhindern?

Use safe-by-default frameworks, validate untrusted input at trust boundaries, and apply the principle of least privilege. Cover the data-flow signature in CI with SAST.

Wie erkennt und behebt Plexicus CWE-1066?

Die SAST-Engine von Plexicus erkennt die Datenfluss-Signatur von CWE-1066 bei jedem Commit. Bei einem Treffer öffnet unser Codex-Remedium-Agent einen Fix-PR mit korrigiertem Code, Tests und einer einzeiligen Zusammenfassung für den Reviewer.

Wo erfahre ich mehr über CWE-1066?

MITRE veröffentlicht die kanonische Definition unter https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1066.html. Für ergänzende Hinweise kannst du auch die OWASP- und NIST-Dokumentation heranziehen.

Verwandte Schwachstellen

Weaknesses related to CWE-1066

CWE-710 Parent

Improper Adherence to Coding Standards

This weakness occurs when developers don't consistently follow established coding standards and best practices, which can introduce…

CWE-1041 Sibling

Use of Redundant Code

This weakness occurs when a codebase contains identical or nearly identical logic duplicated across multiple functions, methods, or…

CWE-1044 Sibling

Architecture with Number of Horizontal Layers Outside of Expected Range

This occurs when a software system is built with either too many or too few distinct architectural layers, falling outside a recommended…

CWE-1048 Sibling

Invokable Control Element with Large Number of Outward Calls

This weakness occurs when a single function, method, or callable code block makes an excessively high number of calls to other objects or…

CWE-1059 Sibling

Insufficient Technical Documentation

This weakness occurs when a software or hardware product lacks comprehensive technical documentation. Missing or incomplete details about…

CWE-1061 Sibling

Insufficient Encapsulation

This weakness occurs when a software component exposes too much of its internal workings, such as data structures or implementation logic.…

CWE-1065 Sibling

Runtime Resource Management Control Element in a Component Built to Run on Application Servers

This weakness occurs when an application built to run on a managed application server bypasses the server's high-level APIs and instead…

CWE-1068 Sibling

Inconsistency Between Implementation and Documented Design

This weakness occurs when the actual code implementation deviates from the intended design described in its official documentation,…

CWE-1076 Sibling

Insufficient Adherence to Expected Conventions

This weakness occurs when software code, design, documentation, or other components fail to follow established industry or…

Bereit, das Wesentliche zu validieren?

Bereit zu validieren, was zählt.

Plexicus ist Proof-Driven AppSec: validierte Funde, kontextuelles Verständnis und geprüfte Remediation — in Evidenz verankert, mit Ihnen gescoped.

Qualifizierung

Prüfen Sie, ob AI Swarm Pentest zu Ihrer Umgebung passt.

Teilen Sie den wichtigsten Kontext. Wir prüfen den Umfang und nennen den nächsten kommerziellen Schritt.

Vor dem Absenden — prüfen Sie, ob Sie passen

0 / 280

Keine Verpflichtung. Wenn Sie nicht passen, sagen wir es Ihnen.

SAMPLE HANDOVER · ILLUSTRATIVE

Sample evidence handover

A trimmed view of what your team receives at the end of an AI Swarm Pentest engagement. Real engagements include full technical evidence, executive narrative, and a remediation plan.

VALIDATED FINDING Evidence attached

Server-Side Request Forgery in webhooks/receiver

demo-project/sample-app · src/webhooks/receiver.py:42

SeverityHigh CVSS 3.18.6 Priority79 Confirmedvia replay

Untrusted caller-supplied URLs reach an internal egress without an allowlist. Replayed in a sandbox against a fresh authorized target — the same control was validated to fail twice.

REVIEWER-READY REMEDIATION Merge-ready PR

Validate the target URL against an allowlist of permitted hostnames. Reject private/internal IP ranges. Enforce HTTPS only.

plexicus/remediation/webhooks-ssrf 3 changed · 0 new files
42resp = requests.get(target_url)
42+if not is_allowed_host(target_url):
43+  raise WebhookRejected(target_url)
44+resp = requests.get(target_url, timeout=5)
Every engagement hands over:
  • Executive briefing
  • Validated findings list
  • Merge-ready PRs
  • Compliance mapping (NIS2 · DORA · CRA)
Private Runde Für Investoren