CWE-29 详情

CWE-29

Path Traversal: '\..\filename'
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
Incomplete
2026-10-28
00h00 +00:00
指定 CWE 通知
随时了解指定 CWE 的变更。
管理通知

名称: Path Traversal: '\..\filename'

The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '\..\filename' (leading backslash dot dot) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that directory.

基本信息

引入方式

Implementation

适用平台

编程语言

类: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined)

操作系统

类: Windows (Undetermined)

常见后果

影响范围 影响 可能性
Confidentiality
Integrity
Read Files or Directories, Modify Files or Directories

注意: An attacker can traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory.

观察示例

参考资料 描述

CVE-2002-1987

Protection mechanism checks for "/.." but doesn't account for Windows-specific "\.." allowing read of arbitrary files.

CVE-2005-2142

Directory traversal vulnerability in FTP server allows remote authenticated attackers to list arbitrary directories via a "\.." sequence in an LS command.

潜在缓解措施

Phases : Implementation
Phases : 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.

检测方法

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.)

漏洞映射说明

依据 : This CWE entry is at the Variant level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
备注 : 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.

备注

This is similar to CWE-25, except using "\" instead of "/".

提交记录

名称 组织 日期 发布日期 Version
PLOVER 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

修改记录

名称 组织 日期 备注
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-10-14 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms, Description
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-11-24 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-07-27 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2010-06-21 +00:00 updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-03-29 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Applicable_Platforms
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-06-25 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-01-31 +00:00 updated Description
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2025-09-09 +00:00 updated Affected_Resources, Functional_Areas
CWE Content Team MITRE 2025-12-11 +00:00 updated Detection_Factors, Weakness_Ordinalities
CWE Content Team MITRE 2026-10-28 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Description, Relationship_Notes