CWE一覧に戻る
CWE-33

パストラバーサル: '...' (マルチプルドット)

Path Traversal: '....' (Multiple Dot)
脆弱性 作成中
JA

この製品は、制限されたディレクトリ内にあるべきパス名を構築するために外部入力を使用しますが、そのディレクトリの外にある場所に解決することができる「......」(複数のドット)シーケンスを適切に中和しません。

これにより、攻撃者はファイルシステムを横断して、制限されたディレクトリの外部にあるファイルやディレクトリにアクセスすることができる。

......」操作は、一部のパストラバーサル保護スキームをバイパスするのに便利です。一部のWindowsシステムでは「......」と等価であり、2つのドットのみが有効であると仮定するチェックをバイパスする可能性があります。./"シーケンスの除去などの不完全なフィルタリングは、安全でない値への変換により、最終的に有効な"... "シーケンスを生成する可能性がある(CWE-182)。

EN

The product 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).

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity / Impact: Read Files or Directories; Modify Files or Directories
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.

When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists 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 list 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 denylist, 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.
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.
MITRE公式ページ — CWE-33