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 Incompleto
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…
Definição
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.
Impacto no mundo real
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.
Como os atacantes a exploram
Trajeto do atacante passo a passo
- 1
Identificar um caminho de código que trata input não confiável sem validação.
- 2
Criar um payload que explora o comportamento inseguro — injeção, traversal, overflow ou abuso de lógica.
- 3
Entregar o payload através de um pedido normal e observar a reação da aplicação.
- 4
Iterar até que a resposta exponha dados, execute código do atacante ou escale privilégios.
Exemplo de código vulnerável
Vulnerable pseudo
A MITRE não publicou um exemplo de código para este CWE. O padrão abaixo é ilustrativo — consulte os Recursos para referências canónicas.
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
// Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
return executeUnsafe(input);
} Exemplo de código seguro
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.
Lista de verificação de prevenção
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.
Sinais de deteção
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.
Perguntas frequentes O que é o CWE-115?
Qual a gravidade do CWE-115?
Que linguagens ou plataformas são afetadas pelo CWE-115?
Como posso prevenir o CWE-115?
Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-115?
Onde posso saber mais sobre o CWE-115?
Frequently asked questions
O que é o 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.
Qual a gravidade do CWE-115?
A MITRE não publicou uma classificação de probabilidade de exploração para esta fraqueza. Trate-a como impacto médio até o seu modelo de ameaças provar o contrário.
Que linguagens ou plataformas são afetadas pelo CWE-115?
A MITRE não especificou as plataformas afetadas por este CWE — pode aplicar-se à maioria das stacks de aplicações.
Como posso prevenir o 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.
Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-115?
O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-115 em cada commit. Quando é encontrada uma correspondência, o nosso agente Codex Remedium abre um PR de correção com o código corrigido, testes e um resumo de uma linha para o revisor.
Onde posso saber mais sobre o CWE-115?
A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/115.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.
Fraquezas relacionadas
Weaknesses related to CWE-115
CWE-436 Pai
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 Irmão
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 Irmão
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 Irmão
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 Irmão
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 Irmão
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 Irmão
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…
Pronto para validar o que importa?
Pronto para validar o que importa.
O Plexicus é Proof-Driven AppSec: achados validados, compreensão contextual e remediação revisada — ancorada em evidência, escopada com você.