CWE-618 Variante Incompleto

Exposed Unsafe ActiveX Method

This vulnerability occurs when an ActiveX control, designed for web browsers, exposes methods that bypass the browser's built-in security restrictions. These unsafe methods can perform actions…

Definición

What is CWE-618?

This vulnerability occurs when an ActiveX control, designed for web browsers, exposes methods that bypass the browser's built-in security restrictions. These unsafe methods can perform actions outside the browser's intended security boundaries, such as those defined by zones or domains.
ActiveX controls operate with high-level system permissions, granting them far more access to the operating system than standard web scripts like JavaScript. When a control exposes a method without proper safeguards, attackers can potentially invoke it from a malicious webpage. The risk level depends entirely on what the exposed method does and whether it validates any input it receives. Without checks to verify the origin or integrity of the call, these dangerous methods become an open gateway. Attackers can exploit them to perform unauthorized actions on a user's system, directly from the browser. The core issue is the combination of excessive system privileges and a lack of validation for who is calling the method or what data they are sending.
Impacto en el mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-618

Cómo lo explotan los atacantes

Ruta del atacante paso a paso

  1. 1

    Identifica una ruta de código que maneje entrada no confiable sin validación.

  2. 2

    Crea un payload que ejercite el comportamiento inseguro — inyección, traversal, overflow o abuso de lógica.

  3. 3

    Envía el payload a través de una solicitud normal y observa la reacción de la aplicación.

  4. 4

    Itera hasta que la respuesta filtre datos, ejecute código del atacante o escale privilegios.

Ejemplo de código vulnerable

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE no ha publicado un ejemplo de código para esta CWE. El patrón siguiente es ilustrativo — consulta Recursos para referencias canónicas.

Vulnerable pseudo
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Ejemplo de código seguro

Secure pseudo

Seguro 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.
Lista de prevención

How to prevent CWE-618

  • Implementation If you must expose a method, make sure to perform input validation on all arguments, and protect against all possible vulnerabilities.
  • Architecture and Design Use code signing, although this does not protect against any weaknesses that are already in the control.
  • Architecture and Design / System Configuration Where possible, avoid marking the control as safe for scripting.
Señales de detección

How to detect CWE-618

Automated Static Analysis High

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.)

CWE-618

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.

Preguntas frecuentes

Frequently asked questions

¿Qué es CWE-618?

This vulnerability occurs when an ActiveX control, designed for web browsers, exposes methods that bypass the browser's built-in security restrictions. These unsafe methods can perform actions outside the browser's intended security boundaries, such as those defined by zones or domains.

¿Qué gravedad tiene CWE-618?

MITRE no ha publicado una calificación de probabilidad de explotación para esta debilidad. Trátala como de impacto medio hasta que tu modelo de amenazas demuestre lo contrario.

¿Qué lenguajes o plataformas se ven afectados por CWE-618?

MITRE no ha especificado plataformas afectadas para esta CWE — puede aplicar a la mayoría de los stacks de aplicaciones.

¿Cómo puedo prevenir CWE-618?

If you must expose a method, make sure to perform input validation on all arguments, and protect against all possible vulnerabilities. Use code signing, although this does not protect against any weaknesses that are already in the control.

¿Cómo detecta y corrige Plexicus CWE-618?

El motor SAST de Plexicus detecta la firma de flujo de datos para CWE-618 en cada commit. Cuando hay coincidencia, nuestro agente Codex Remedium abre un PR de corrección con el código corregido, las pruebas y un resumen de una línea para el revisor.

¿Dónde puedo aprender más sobre CWE-618?

MITRE publica la definición canónica en https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/618.html. También puedes consultar la documentación de OWASP y NIST para guías relacionadas.

¿Listo para validar lo que importa?

Listo para validar lo que importa.

Plexicus es Proof-Driven AppSec: hallazgos validados, comprensión contextual y remediación revisada — anclada en evidencia, acotada contigo.

Calificación

Comprueba si el AI Swarm Pentest encaja en tu entorno.

Déjanos el contexto mínimo. Revisaremos el alcance y te indicaremos el siguiente paso comercial.

Antes de enviar — verifica que encajas

0 / 280

Sin compromiso. Si no encajas, te lo decimos.

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)
Ronda privada Para inversores