CWE-1289: Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input
The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.
How it's found
Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input is typically found by tracing untrusted input from where it enters the system to the point where it is used without the check or neutralization this weakness describes, combining manual code review with dynamic testing.
Attackers can sometimes bypass input validation schemes by finding inputs that appear to be safe, but will be dangerous when processed at a lower layer or by a downstream component. For example, a simple XSS protection mechanism might try to validate that an input has no "<script>" tags using case-sensitive matching, but since HTML is case-insensitive when processed by web browsers, an attacker could inject "<ScrIpT>" and trigger XSS.
Consequences
- Varies by Context
Mitigations
- 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.
Where this fits in a TurboPentest engagement
This weakness is not covered by the automated black-box pentest. IntegSec pentesters cover it in a manual engagement.
Frequently asked questions
What is CWE-1289?
The product receives an input value that is used as a resource identifier or other type of reference, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is equivalent to a potentially-unsafe value.
How do you find Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input?
Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input is typically found by tracing untrusted input from where it enters the system to the point where it is used without the check or neutralization this weakness describes, combining manual code review with dynamic testing.
What is the impact of CWE-1289?
Varies by Context
Does TurboPentest test for Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input?
This weakness is not covered by the automated black-box pentest. IntegSec pentesters cover it in a manual engagement.
Related CWEs
Written and reviewed by
Michel Chamberland - Founder & CEO, IntegSec
CISSP, OSCP, OSCE, CEH, GIAC, CCSK · 20+ years in offensive security
Michel has spent 20+ years on offensive security teams including IBM X-Force Red and Trustwave SpiderLabs, leading penetration tests, red team engagements, and breach response for Fortune 500 customers. He is the founder of IntegSec and the architect of TurboPentest.
Find these issues before an attacker does
TurboPentest runs an agentic AI pentest against your target and reports findings with proof, from $99 per target.
Start a pentest