Détail du CWE-1284

CWE-1284

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input
Incomplete
2020-02-24
00h00 +00:00
2025-12-11
00h00 +00:00
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input

The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.

Description du CWE

Specified quantities include size, length, frequency, price, rate, number of operations, time, and others. Code may rely on specified quantities to allocate resources, perform calculations, control iteration, etc.

Informations générales

Modes d'introduction

Implementation : Since quantities are often used to affect resource allocation or process financial data, they are often present in many places in the code.

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Class: Not Language-Specific (Often)

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
Other
Integrity
Availability
Varies by Context, DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU), Modify Memory, Read Memory

Note: When the quantity is not properly validated, then attackers can specify malicious quantities to cause excessive resource allocation, trigger unexpected failures, enable buffer overflows, etc.

Exemples observés

Références Description

CVE-2025-46687

Chain: Javascript engine code does not perform a length check (CWE-1284) leading to integer overflow (CWE-190) causing allocation of smaller buffer than expected (CWE-131) resulting in a heap-based buffer overflow (CWE-122)

CVE-2019-19911

Chain: Python library does not limit the resources used to process images that specify a very large number of bands (CWE-1284), leading to excessive memory consumption (CWE-789) or an integer overflow (CWE-190).

CVE-2008-1440

lack of validation of length field leads to infinite loop

CVE-2008-2374

lack of validation of string length fields allows memory consumption or buffer over-read

Mesures d’atténuation potentielles

Phases : 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.


Méthodes de détection

Automated Static Analysis

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.)

Notes de cartographie des vulnérabilités

Justification : This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Commentaire : Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

NotesNotes

This entry is still under development and will continue to see updates and content improvements.

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-06-24 +00:00 2020-02-24 +00:00 4.1

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
CWE Content Team MITRE 2022-10-13 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2025-09-09 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2025-12-11 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Detection_Factors, Modes_of_Introduction, Observed_Examples, Weakness_Ordinalities