Fuzz testing (fuzzing) is a powerful technique for generating large numbers of diverse inputs - either randomly or algorithmically - and dynamically invoking the code with those inputs. Even with random inputs, it is often capable of generating unexpected results such as crashes, memory corruption, or resource consumption. Fuzzing effectively produces repeatable test cases that clearly indicate bugs, which helps developers to diagnose the issues.
CWE-115 Base Incomplet
Misinterpretation of Input
This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly interprets or processes input data, leading to unintended and potentially harmful security consequences. The flawed interpretation can come from…
Définition
What is CWE-115?
This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly interprets or processes input data, leading to unintended and potentially harmful security consequences. The flawed interpretation can come from user-provided data, external systems, or other components.
At its core, this weakness is about a mismatch between what the software expects and how it actually handles incoming information. Instead of rejecting malformed data or processing it safely, the system assigns it the wrong meaning or context. This misinterpretation then ripples through the application logic, creating openings for attackers to manipulate behavior, bypass checks, or corrupt data. Common triggers include incorrect character encoding handling, flawed protocol parsing, or mistaken assumptions about data structure or boundaries.
For developers, prevention starts with adopting a strict and consistent parsing strategy. Always validate and sanitize all input against a well-defined schema before processing. Use established libraries for complex formats (like XML, JSON, or network protocols) rather than custom parsers. Implement clear data transformation pipelines and log parsing decisions to catch discrepancies early. Assume input is malicious until proven otherwise, and design your data handling to fail securely—defaulting to a denied state when interpretation fails.
Impact réel
Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-115
-
Product sees dangerous file extension in free text of a group discussion, disconnects all users.
-
Product does not correctly import and process security settings from another product.
Comment les attaquants l'exploitent
Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape
- 1
Identifier un chemin de code qui traite des entrées non fiables sans validation.
- 2
Élaborer une charge utile qui exploite le comportement non sécurisé — injection, traversal, débordement ou abus de logique.
- 3
Délivrer la charge utile via une requête normale et observer la réaction de l'application.
- 4
Itérer jusqu'à ce que la réponse divulgue des données, exécute le code de l'attaquant ou élève les privilèges.
Exemple de code vulnérable
Vulnerable pseudo
MITRE n'a pas publié d'exemple de code pour ce CWE. Le motif ci-dessous est illustratif — voir Ressources pour les références canoniques.
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
// Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
return executeUnsafe(input);
} Exemple de code sécurisé
Secure 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.
Liste de contrôle de prévention
How to prevent CWE-115
- 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.
Signaux de détection
How to detect CWE-115
CWE-115
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.
Questions fréquentes Qu'est-ce que CWE-115 ?
Quelle est la gravité de CWE-115 ?
Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-115 ?
Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-115 ?
Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-115 ?
Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-115 ?
Frequently asked questions
Qu'est-ce que CWE-115 ?
This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly interprets or processes input data, leading to unintended and potentially harmful security consequences. The flawed interpretation can come from user-provided data, external systems, or other components.
Quelle est la gravité de CWE-115 ?
MITRE n'a pas publié de note de probabilité d'exploitation pour cette faiblesse. Traitez-la comme un impact moyen jusqu'à ce que votre modèle de menace prouve le contraire.
Quels langages ou plateformes sont affectés par CWE-115 ?
MITRE n'a pas spécifié les plateformes affectées pour ce CWE — il peut s'appliquer à la plupart des stacks applicatives.
Comment puis-je prévenir CWE-115 ?
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.
Comment Plexicus détecte et corrige CWE-115 ?
Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-115 à chaque commit. Lorsqu'une correspondance est trouvée, notre agent Codex Remedium ouvre une PR de correction avec le code corrigé, les tests et un résumé d'une ligne pour le relecteur.
Où puis-je en savoir plus sur CWE-115 ?
MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/115.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.
Faiblesses associées
Weaknesses related to CWE-115
CWE-436 Parent
Interpretation Conflict
An interpretation conflict occurs when two systems process the same data or sequence of events differently, leading one system to make…
CWE-113 Frère
Improper Neutralization of CRLF Sequences in HTTP Headers ('HTTP Request/Response Splitting')
This vulnerability occurs when an application accepts user-supplied data and includes it directly in HTTP headers without properly…
CWE-437 Frère
Incomplete Model of Endpoint Features
This vulnerability occurs when a security product, proxy, or monitoring system sits between endpoints but lacks a full understanding of…
CWE-444 Frère
Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests ('HTTP Request/Response Smuggling')
This weakness occurs when a proxy, firewall, or other intermediary HTTP agent interprets a malformed HTTP request or response differently…
CWE-626 Frère
Null Byte Interaction Error (Poison Null Byte)
This vulnerability occurs when software incorrectly processes null bytes (NUL characters) as data moves between different systems or…
CWE-650 Frère
Trusting HTTP Permission Methods on the Server Side
This vulnerability occurs when a server incorrectly assumes that HTTP GET requests are always safe and cannot change server-side data.…
CWE-86 Frère
Improper Neutralization of Invalid Characters in Identifiers in Web Pages
This vulnerability occurs when an application fails to properly filter or escape invalid characters within web identifiers like HTML tag…
Prêt à valider l'essentiel ?
Prêt à valider ce qui compte.
Plexicus est Proof-Driven AppSec : findings validés, compréhension contextuelle et remédiation relue — ancrée dans la preuve, scopée avec vous.