Executar análise estática (SAST) na base de código à procura do padrão inseguro no fluxo de dados.
CWE-174 Variante Rascunho
Double Decoding of the Same Data
This vulnerability occurs when an application decodes the same piece of data twice in sequence. This double processing can bypass or neutralize security checks that happen after the first decode,…
Definição
What is CWE-174?
This vulnerability occurs when an application decodes the same piece of data twice in sequence. This double processing can bypass or neutralize security checks that happen after the first decode, leaving the system exposed.
Double decoding is dangerous because it breaks the expected data flow. Security mechanisms like input validation, sanitization, or intrusion detection are often placed after an initial decoding step, assuming the data is now in its canonical form. When a second, unexpected decode happens, it can transform the data again, rendering those intermediate protections useless and allowing malicious payloads to slip through.
Developers can prevent this by establishing a strict, one-time decoding policy in a centralized location within the application's data pipeline. All incoming data should be decoded, validated, and sanitized once into a trusted, internal format before being passed to other components. This ensures security controls are applied to the final, operational form of the data and cannot be circumvented by further transformations.
Impacto no mundo real
Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-174
-
Forum software improperly URL decodes the highlight parameter when extracting text to highlight, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code by double-encoding the highlight value so that special characters are inserted into the result.
-
XSS protection mechanism attempts to remove "/" that could be used to close tags, but it can be bypassed using double encoded slashes (%252F)
-
Directory traversal using double encoding.
-
"%2527" (double-encoded single quote) used in SQL injection.
-
Double hex-encoded data.
-
Browser executes HTML at higher privileges via URL with hostnames that are double hex encoded, which are decoded twice to generate a malicious hostname.
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-174
- Architecture and Design Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
- 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-174
Executar testes dinâmicos de segurança de aplicações (DAST) contra o endpoint em execução.
Monitorizar os registos em tempo de execução para traços de exceção invulgares, input malformado ou tentativas de contornar a autorização.
Revisão de código: sinalizar qualquer novo código que trate input desta superfície sem usar os ajudantes validados do framework.
CWE-174
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-174?
Qual a gravidade do CWE-174?
Que linguagens ou plataformas são afetadas pelo CWE-174?
Como posso prevenir o CWE-174?
Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-174?
Onde posso saber mais sobre o CWE-174?
Frequently asked questions
O que é o CWE-174?
This vulnerability occurs when an application decodes the same piece of data twice in sequence. This double processing can bypass or neutralize security checks that happen after the first decode, leaving the system exposed.
Qual a gravidade do CWE-174?
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-174?
A MITRE não especificou as plataformas afetadas por este CWE — pode aplicar-se à maioria das stacks de aplicações.
Como posso prevenir o CWE-174?
Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names. 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…
Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-174?
O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-174 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-174?
A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/174.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.
Fraquezas relacionadas
Weaknesses related to CWE-174
CWE-675 Pai
Multiple Operations on Resource in Single-Operation Context
This vulnerability occurs when a software component performs the same action on a resource multiple times, even though the action is…
CWE-1341 Irmão
Multiple Releases of Same Resource or Handle
This vulnerability occurs when a program incorrectly tries to close or release the same system resource—like memory, a file, or a network…
CWE-605 Irmão
Multiple Binds to the Same Port
This vulnerability occurs when a system's socket configuration allows multiple applications to bind to the same network port…
CWE-764 Irmão
Multiple Locks of a Critical Resource
This vulnerability occurs when a critical resource, such as a file, data structure, or connection, is locked more times than the software…
CWE-765 Irmão
Multiple Unlocks of a Critical Resource
This vulnerability occurs when a critical resource, like a lock or semaphore, is unlocked more times than it was locked, putting the…
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.