CWE

Double Decoding of the Same Data

ID: 174		Date: (C)2012-05-14   (M)2022-10-10
Type: weakness		Status: DRAFT
Abstraction Type: Variant

Description

The software decodes the same input twice, which can limit the effectiveness of any protection mechanism that occurs in between the decoding operations.

Applicable Platforms
Language Class: All

Time Of Introduction

• Implementation

Common Consequences

Scope	Technical Impact	Notes
Access_Control Confidentiality Availability Integrity Other	Bypass protection mechanism Execute unauthorized code or commands Varies by context

Detection Methods
None

Potential Mitigations

Phase	Strategy	Description	Effectiveness	Notes
Architecture and Design	Input Validation	Avoid making decisions based on names of resources (e.g. files) if those resources can have alternate names.
Implementation	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.
Implementation	Output Encoding	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	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.

Relationships

Related CWE	Type	View	Chain
CWE-174 ChildOf CWE-896	Category	CWE-888

Demonstrative Examples
None

Observed Examples

1. CVE-2004-1315 : Forum software improperly URL decodes the highlight parameter when extracting text to highlight, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code by double-encoding the highlight value so that special characters are inserted into the result.
2. CVE-2004-1939 : XSS protection mechanism attempts to remove "/" that could be used to close tags, but it can be bypassed using double encoded slashes (%252F)
3. CVE-2001-0333 : Directory traversal using double encoding.
4. CVE-2004-1938 : "%2527" (double-encoded single quote) used in SQL injection.
5. CVE-2005-1945 : Double hex-encoded data.
6. CVE-2005-0054 : Browser executes HTML at higher privileges via URL with hostnames that are double hex encoded, which are decoded twice to generate a malicious hostname.

For more examples, refer to CVE relations in the bottom box.

White Box Definitions
None

Black Box Definitions
None

Taxynomy Mappings

Taxynomy	Id	Name	Fit
PLOVER		Double Encoding

References:
None