CWE-807 is Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision. The flaw arises when the product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism. The database currently holds 58 vulnerabilities mapped to CWE-807 and 2 of them are in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Analyzing data...
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Developers may assume that inputs such as cookies, environment variables, and hidden form fields cannot be modified. However, an attacker could change these inputs using customized clients or other attacks. This change might not be detected. When security decisions such as authentication and authorization are made based on the values of these inputs, attackers can bypass the security of the software.
Without sufficient encryption, integrity checking, or other mechanism, any input that originates from an outsider cannot be trusted.
| Impact | Scope | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Varies by Context | Confidentiality, Access Control, Availability, Other | Attackers can bypass the security decision to access whatever is being protected. The consequences will depend on the associated functionality, but they can range from granting additional privileges to untrusted users to bypassing important security checks. Ultimately, this weakness may lead to exposure or modification of sensitive data, system crash, or execution of arbitrary code. |
| Method | Approach | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Manual Static Analysis | Since this weakness does not typically appear frequently within a single software package, manual white box techniques may be able to provide sufficient code coverage and reduction of false positives if all potentially-vulnerable operations can be assessed within limited time constraints.The effectiveness and speed of manual analysis will be reduced if the there is not a centralized security mechanism, and the security logic is widely distributed throughout the software. | High |
| Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis | SOAR Partial |
| Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies | SOAR Partial |
| Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners | SOAR Partial |
| Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer Monitored Virtual Environment - run potentially malicious code in sandbox / wrapper / virtual machine, see if it does anything suspicious | SOAR Partial |
| Manual Static Analysis - Source Code | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) | High |
| Automated Static Analysis - Source Code | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer | SOAR Partial |
| Architecture or Design Review | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Attack Modeling | High |
Below are representative vulnerabilities related to this CWE, prioritized by severity.
CWE™ Program, operated by The MITRE Corporation. Copyright © 2006–2026, The MITRE Corporation. The MITRE Corporation hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use CWE for research, development, and commercial purposes. CWE Terms of Use.
CyStack VulnScan continuously discovers assets, validates vulnerabilities, and helps security teams prioritize remediation across the organization.
Review CyStack's security rating and practical recommendations for websites and edge assets.
Explore cybersecurity research from our team of security specialists.
Browse practical cybersecurity knowledge across CyStack's articles and guides.
en
