CWE-33 路径遍历:'....' (多个点号)

admin 2022年1月2日04:08:39CWE(弱点枚举)评论16 views4037字阅读13分27秒阅读模式

CWE-33 路径遍历:'....' (多个点号)

Path Traversal: '....' (Multiple Dot)

结构: Simple

Abstraction: Variant

状态: Incomplete

被利用可能性: unkown


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


This allows attackers to traverse the file system to access files or directories that are outside of the restricted directory.

The '....' manipulation is useful for bypassing some path traversal protection schemes. On some Windows systems, it is equivalent to "......" and might bypass checks that assume only two dots are valid. Incomplete filtering, such as removal of "./" sequences, can ultimately produce valid ".." sequences due to a collapse into unsafe value (CWE-182).


  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 23 cwe_View_ID: 1000 cwe_Ordinal: Primary

  • cwe_Nature: ChildOf cwe_CWE_ID: 23 cwe_View_ID: 699 cwe_Ordinal: Primary


Language: {'cwe_Class': 'Language-Independent', 'cwe_Prevalence': 'Undetermined'}


范围 影响 注释
['Confidentiality', 'Integrity'] ['Read Files or Directories', 'Modify Files or Directories']


MIT-5.1 Implementation

策略: Input Validation

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a whitelist 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 (i.e., do not rely on a blacklist). A blacklist 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, blacklists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
When validating filenames, use stringent whitelists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a whitelist of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a blacklist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.

MIT-20 Implementation

策略: Input Validation

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 whitelist validation schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked.


标识 说明 链接
CVE-2000-0240 read files via "/........../" in URL
CVE-2000-0773 read files via "...." in web server
CVE-1999-1082 read files via "......" in web server (doubled triple dot?)
CVE-2004-2121 read files via "......" in web server (doubled triple dot?)
CVE-2001-0491 multiple attacks using "..", "...", and "...." in different commands
CVE-2001-0615 "..." or "...." in chat server



映射的分类名 ImNode ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER '....' (multiple dot)
Software Fault Patterns SFP16 Path Traversal


特别标注: 本站(CN-SEC.COM)所有文章仅供技术研究,若将其信息做其他用途,由用户承担全部法律及连带责任,本站不承担任何法律及连带责任,请遵守中华人民共和国安全法.
  • 我的微信
  • 微信扫一扫
  • weinxin
  • 我的微信公众号
  • 微信扫一扫
  • weinxin
  • 本文由 发表于 2022年1月2日04:08:39
  • 转载请保留本文链接(CN-SEC中文网:感谢原作者辛苦付出):
                  CWE-33 路径遍历:'....' (多个点号)


匿名网友 填写信息

:?: :razz: :sad: :evil: :!: :smile: :oops: :grin: :eek: :shock: :???: :cool: :lol: :mad: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :cry: :mrgreen: