CWE-233 Base Incompleto

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,…

Definição

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.

Impacto no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-233

Ainda não há referências CVE públicas associadas a este CWE no catálogo da MITRE.

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 Java

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

Vulnerável 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();
```
...* 
  				}}}

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-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.

Sinais de deteção

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

Perguntas frequentes

Frequently asked questions

O que é o CWE-233?

Qual a gravidade do CWE-233?

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-233?

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

Como posso prevenir o 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.

Como é que o Plexicus deteta e corrige o CWE-233?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-233 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-233?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/233.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

Fraquezas relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-233

CWE-228 Pai

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.

Reservar Pentest

Improper Handling of Parameters

What is CWE-233?

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-233

Trajeto do atacante passo a passo

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

Pronto para validar o que importa.

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

Pedido recebido. Marque o próximo passo.

Sample evidence handover

Server-Side Request Forgery in `webhooks/receiver`