Live Active security incident? Get immediate response
CWE Reference

CWE-41: Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence

Official CWE-41 CWE context with Glexia analysis, remediation guidance, related CVEs, and ATT&CK context.

Release 4.20weaknessIncomplete

Glexia's Take

CWE-41: Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence

Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Executive Impact

  • Confidentiality,Integrity,Access Control: Read Files or Directories,Modify Files or Directories,Bypass Protection Mechanism: An attacker may be able to traverse the file system to unintended locations and read or overwrite the contents of unexpected files. If the files are used for a security mechanism than an attacker may be able to bypass the mechanism.

Developer Pattern

CWE-41 is the kind of defect developers can usually prevent with explicit validation, safer framework defaults, and tests that exercise hostile input or unsafe state transitions.

Confidence

high confidence from CWE-41, 4.20.

Official CWE Definition

CWE-41: Improper Resolution of Path Equivalence

The product is vulnerable to file system contents disclosure through path equivalence. Path equivalence involves the use of special characters in file and directory names. The associated manipulations are intended to generate multiple names for the same object.

Path equivalence is usually employed in order to circumvent access controls expressed using an incomplete set of file name or file path representations. This is different from path traversal, wherein the manipulations are performed to generate a name for a different object.

Type
weakness
Abstraction
Base
Status
Incomplete
Source
MITRE CWE definition

Developer And Remediation Guidance

How teams prevent and detect this weakness

Causes

  • Missing validation
  • Unsafe defaults
  • Insufficient authorization or memory-safety invariant

Remediation

  • Implementation: [object Object]
  • 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.

Detection

  • Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: [object Object]
  • Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode: [object Object]
  • Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation: [object Object]
  • Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation: [object Object]
  • Manual Static Analysis - Source Code: [object Object]
  • Automated Static Analysis - Source Code: [object Object]
  • Architecture or Design Review: [object Object]

Mappings

Related CVEs, CWEs, and ATT&CK context