CWE-233 Base Incomplet

Improper Handling of Parameters

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to correctly process input that contains an unexpected number of parameters, missing fields, or undefined arguments. It often leads to crashes,…

Définition

What is CWE-233?

This vulnerability occurs when software fails to correctly process input that contains an unexpected number of parameters, missing fields, or undefined arguments. It often leads to crashes, unexpected behavior, or security bypasses.

At its core, this weakness is about poor input validation and error handling. When an application expects a specific set of data—like form fields, API parameters, or function arguments—but receives fewer, more, or undefined values, it must handle this gracefully. Without proper checks, the software might try to access non-existent data, causing errors like null pointer dereferences, out-of-bounds access, or logic flaws that attackers can exploit to crash the system or bypass security controls. To prevent this, developers should implement strict input validation at all entry points. Always define and enforce the expected structure, count, and presence of all parameters. Use safe access patterns, such as checking for a parameter's existence before using it, and provide default values where appropriate. Robust error handling routines should catch and manage malformed requests without exposing sensitive debug information, ensuring the application remains stable and secure even when faced with unexpected input.

Impact réel

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-233

Aucune référence CVE publique n'est liée à ce CWE dans le catalogue MITRE pour le moment.

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 Java

This Android application has registered to handle a URL when sent an intent:

Vulnérable Java

```
...* 
  IntentFilter filter = new IntentFilter("com.example.URLHandler.openURL");
  MyReceiver receiver = new MyReceiver();
  registerReceiver(receiver, filter);
  
   *...* 
  
  public class UrlHandlerReceiver extends BroadcastReceiver {
  ```
  		@Override
  		public void onReceive(Context context, Intent intent) {
  				if("com.example.URLHandler.openURL".equals(intent.getAction())) {
  					String URL = intent.getStringExtra("URLToOpen");
  					int length = URL.length();
```
...* 
  				}}}

Exemple de code sécurisé

Secure pseudo

Sécurisé 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-233

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-233

Fuzzing High

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.

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-233

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.

Request AI Swarm Pentest

Questions fréquentes

Frequently asked questions

Qu'est-ce que CWE-233 ?

Quelle est la gravité de CWE-233 ?

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-233 ?

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-233 ?

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-233 ?

Le moteur SAST de Plexicus reconnaît la signature de flux de données de CWE-233 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-233 ?

MITRE publie la définition canonique à https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/233.html. Vous pouvez également consulter la documentation OWASP et NIST pour des conseils adjacents.

Faiblesses associées

Weaknesses related to CWE-233

CWE-228 Parent

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.

Réserver un Pentest

Improper Handling of Parameters

What is CWE-233?

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-233

Parcours de l'attaquant étape par étape

Vulnerable Java

Secure pseudo

How to prevent CWE-233

How to detect CWE-233

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

Frequently asked questions

Weaknesses related to CWE-233

Improper Handling of Syntactically Invalid Structure

Improper Handling of Missing Special Element

Improper Handling of Additional Special Element

Improper Handling of Inconsistent Special Elements

Improper Handling of Values

Improper Handling of Structural Elements

Improper Handling of Unexpected Data Type

Failure to Handle Missing Parameter

Improper Handling of Extra Parameters

Further reading

Prêt à valider ce qui compte.

Vérifiez si l'AI Swarm Pentest convient à votre environnement.

Demande reçue. Réservez la prochaine étape.

Sample evidence handover

Server-Side Request Forgery in `webhooks/receiver`