CWE-357 Base Rascunho

Insufficient UI Warning of Dangerous Operations

This vulnerability occurs when a software application does present a warning to a user before a risky action, but the warning is designed or placed in a way that makes it too easy to miss, ignore,…

Definição

What is CWE-357?

This vulnerability occurs when a software application does present a warning to a user before a risky action, but the warning is designed or placed in a way that makes it too easy to miss, ignore, or accidentally dismiss.
Effective security warnings must actively capture user attention to be useful. A warning that is subtle, buried in other text, uses unclear language, or can be dismissed with a single click fails its primary purpose. This often happens when designers prioritize a clean user interface over security communication, or when warnings become so frequent that users habitually click through them—a phenomenon known as 'warning fatigue.' The core risk is that users may unintentionally perform dangerous operations like deleting critical data, overwriting files, or granting excessive permissions. To prevent this, warnings should be prominent, require a deliberate action to acknowledge (like typing a confirmation word), and clearly explain the consequences. For developers, this means implementing modal dialogs for critical actions, using contrasting colors and icons, and avoiding pre-selected 'OK' buttons to force conscious user interaction.
Impacto no mundo real

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-357

  • User not sufficiently warned if host key mismatch occurs

Como os atacantes a exploram

Trajeto do atacante passo a passo

  1. 1

    Identificar um caminho de código que trata input não confiável sem validação.

  2. 2

    Criar um payload que explora o comportamento inseguro — injeção, traversal, overflow ou abuso de lógica.

  3. 3

    Entregar o payload através de um pedido normal e observar a reação da aplicação.

  4. 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.

Vulnerável pseudo
// 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

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-357

  • 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-357

SAST High

Executar análise estática (SAST) na base de código à procura do padrão inseguro no fluxo de dados.

DAST Moderate

Executar testes dinâmicos de segurança de aplicações (DAST) contra o endpoint em execução.

Runtime Moderate

Monitorizar os registos em tempo de execução para traços de exceção invulgares, input malformado ou tentativas de contornar a autorização.

Code review Moderate

Revisão de código: sinalizar qualquer novo código que trate input desta superfície sem usar os ajudantes validados do framework.

CWE-357

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-357?

This vulnerability occurs when a software application does present a warning to a user before a risky action, but the warning is designed or placed in a way that makes it too easy to miss, ignore, or accidentally dismiss.

Qual a gravidade do CWE-357?

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-357?

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

Como posso prevenir o CWE-357?

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-357?

O motor SAST do Plexicus correlaciona a assinatura de fluxo de dados do CWE-357 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-357?

A MITRE publica a definição canónica em https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/357.html. Pode também consultar a documentação da OWASP e do NIST para orientações adjacentes.

Fraquezas relacionadas

Weaknesses related to CWE-357

CWE-693 Pai

Protection Mechanism Failure

This weakness occurs when software either lacks a necessary security control, implements one that is too weak, or fails to activate an…

CWE-1039 Irmão

Inadequate Detection or Handling of Adversarial Input Perturbations in Automated Recognition Mechanism

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses automated AI or machine learning to classify complex inputs like images, audio, or text, but…

CWE-1248 Irmão

Semiconductor Defects in Hardware Logic with Security-Sensitive Implications

A security-critical hardware component contains physical flaws in its semiconductor material, which can cause it to malfunction and…

CWE-1253 Irmão

Incorrect Selection of Fuse Values

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware security fuse is incorrectly programmed to represent a 'secure' state as logic 0 (unblown). An…

CWE-1269 Irmão

Product Released in Non-Release Configuration

This vulnerability occurs when a product ships to customers while still configured with its pre-production or manufacturing settings,…

CWE-1278 Irmão

Missing Protection Against Hardware Reverse Engineering Using Integrated Circuit (IC) Imaging Techniques

This vulnerability occurs when hardware lacks safeguards against physical inspection, allowing attackers to extract sensitive data by…

CWE-1291 Irmão

Public Key Re-Use for Signing both Debug and Production Code

This vulnerability occurs when the same cryptographic key is used to sign both development/debug software builds and final production…

CWE-1318 Irmão

Missing Support for Security Features in On-chip Fabrics or Buses

This vulnerability occurs when the communication channels (fabrics or buses) within a chip lack built-in or enabled security features,…

CWE-1319 Irmão

Improper Protection against Electromagnetic Fault Injection (EM-FI)

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware device lacks sufficient shielding against electromagnetic interference, allowing attackers to…

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