CWE-117 Base Rascunho Medium likelihood

Improper Output Neutralization for Logs

This vulnerability occurs when an application creates log entries using unvalidated external data, allowing attackers to inject malicious characters or commands that can corrupt log files, trigger…

Definição

What is CWE-117?

This vulnerability occurs when an application creates log entries using unvalidated external data, allowing attackers to inject malicious characters or commands that can corrupt log files, trigger parsing errors, or enable log injection attacks.
Log injection happens when user-supplied data containing special characters like newlines (\n), carriage returns (\r), or log-specific control sequences is written directly into log files without proper sanitization. Attackers can exploit this to forge fake log entries, break log file formatting, or obfuscate their malicious activities by injecting deceptive lines that mislead forensic analysis. To prevent this, developers should treat log entries as structured data rather than free-form text. Always sanitize or encode external inputs before writing them to logs, using appropriate logging frameworks that automatically handle escaping. Consider using parameterized logging functions that separate data from the log message template, which neutralizes dangerous characters while maintaining log integrity and readability.
Vulnerability Diagram CWE-117
Log Injection Username bob\nADMIN: login OK app.log 12:00 INFO login user=bob ADMIN: login OK ← forged 12:01 INFO list page SOC analyst misled by fake events Newlines in input forge log entries and hide attacker traces.
Impacto no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-117

  • Chain: inject fake log entries with fake timestamps using CRLF injection

Como os atacantes a exploram

Trajeto do atacante passo a passo

  1. 1

    The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the parseInt call fails, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.

  2. 2

    If a user submits the string "twenty-one" for val, the following entry is logged:

  3. 3

    - INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one

  4. 4

    However, if an attacker submits the string "twenty-one%0a%0aINFO:+User+logged+out%3dbadguy", the following entry is logged:

  5. 5

    - INFO: Failed to parse val=twenty-one - INFO: User logged out=badguy

Exemplo de código vulnerável

Vulnerable Java

The following web application code attempts to read an integer value from a request object. If the parseInt call fails, then the input is logged with an error message indicating what happened.

Vulnerável Java
String val = request.getParameter("val");
  try {
  		int value = Integer.parseInt(val);
  }
  catch (NumberFormatException) {
  	log.info("Failed to parse val = " + val);
  }
  ...
Exemplo 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 verificação de prevenção

How to prevent CWE-117

  • Implementation Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
  • Implementation Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
  • Implementation Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.
Sinais de deteção

How to detect CWE-117

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-117

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

Frequently asked questions

O que é o CWE-117?

This vulnerability occurs when an application creates log entries using unvalidated external data, allowing attackers to inject malicious characters or commands that can corrupt log files, trigger parsing errors, or enable log injection attacks.

Qual a gravidade do CWE-117?

A MITRE classifica a probabilidade de exploração como Média — a exploração é realista mas normalmente requer condições específicas.

Que linguagens ou plataformas são afetadas pelo CWE-117?

A MITRE não especificou as plataformas afetadas por este CWE — pode aplicar-se à maioria das stacks de aplicações.

Como posso prevenir o CWE-117?

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and…

Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-117?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-117 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-117?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/117.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

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.

Qualificação

Verifique se o AI Swarm Pentest se adequa ao seu ambiente.

Partilhe o contexto mínimo. Vamos rever o escopo e indicar o próximo passo comercial.

Antes de enviar — verifique se se encaixa

0 / 280

Sem compromisso. Se não se encaixa, dizemos.

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 investidores