The adversary utilizes a repeating of the encoding process for a set of characters (that is, character encoding a character encoding of a character) to obfuscate the payload of a particular request. This may allow the adversary to bypass filters that attempt to detect illegal characters or strings, such as those that might be used in traversal or injection attacks. Filters may be able to catch illegal encoded strings, but may not catch doubly encoded strings. For example, a dot (.), often used in path traversal attacks and therefore often blocked by filters, could be URL encoded as %2E. However, many filters recognize this encoding and would still block the request. In a double encoding, the % in the above URL encoding would be encoded again as %25, resulting in %252E which some filters might not catch, but which could still be interpreted as a dot (.) by interpreters on the target.

https://capec.mitre.org/data/definitions/120.html

Related CWE definitions

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
The product constructs all or part of a command, data structure, or record using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify how it is parsed or interpreted when it is sent to a downstream component.
The product does not properly encode or decode the data, resulting in unexpected values.
The product does not properly handle when an input uses an alternate encoding that is valid for the control sphere to which the input is being sent.
The product does not properly handle when all or part of an input has been URL encoded.
The product validates data before it has been filtered, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the filtering step.
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are explicitly allowed by policy because the inputs are assumed to be safe, but the list is too permissive - that is, it allows an input that is unsafe, leading to resultant weaknesses.
The product implements a protection mechanism that relies on a list of inputs (or properties of inputs) that are not allowed by policy or otherwise require other action to neutralize before additional processing takes place, but the list is incomplete.
The product uses a denylist-based protection mechanism to defend against XSS attacks, but the denylist is incomplete, allowing XSS variants to succeed.
The product compares two entities in a security-relevant context, but the comparison is incorrect, which may lead to resultant weaknesses.
Please note that CAPEC definitions are provided as a quick reference only. Visit http://capec.mitre.org/ for a complete list of CAPEC entries and more information.
This web site uses cookies for managing your session, storing preferences, website analytics and additional purposes described in our privacy policy.
By using this web site you are agreeing to CVEdetails.com terms of use!