The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as control elements or syntactic markers when they are sent to a downstream component.

What CVEs are caused by CWE-138?

11 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-138, including CVE-2023-42117, CVE-2024-38133, CVE-2026-26129.

What are the consequences of CWE-138?

Exploiting CWE-138 can lead to: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Alter Execution Logic, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart.

Is CWE-138 actively exploited?

11 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-138; none are currently in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws.

CWE-138: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements

CVE-2026-32178

.NET Spoofing Vulnerability

High · CVSS 7.5 · EPSS 62th

2026-04-14

CWE-138: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements

How to prevent it

Practical mitigations for CWE-138, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.

Implementation

Developers should anticipate that special elements (e.g. delimiters, symbols) will be injected into input vectors of their product. One defense is to create an allowlist (e.g. a regular expression) that defines valid input according to the requirements specifications. Strictly filter any input that does not match against the allowlist. Properly encode your output, and quote any elements that have special meaning to the component with which you are communicating.

Implementation

Input Validation

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.

Implementation

Use and specify an appropriate output encoding to ensure that the special elements are well-defined. A normal byte sequence in one encoding could be a special element in another.

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

Implementation

Output Encoding

While it is risky to use dynamically-generated query strings, code, or commands that mix control and data together, sometimes it may be unavoidable. Properly quote arguments and escape any special characters within those arguments. The most conservative approach is to escape or filter all characters that do not pass an extremely strict allowlist (such as everything that is not alphanumeric or white space). If some special characters are still needed, such as white space, wrap each argument in quotes after the escaping/filtering step. Be careful of argument injection (CWE-88).

Code examples

Illustrative examples from MITRE showing how the weakness appears in code.

The following code takes untrusted input and uses a regular expression to filter "../" from the input. It then appends this result to the /home/user/ directory and attempts to read the file in the final resulting path.

Vulnerable example

perl

my $Username = GetUntrustedInput();

Attack input

plaintext

../../../etc/passwd

Resulting query

plaintext

../../etc/passwd

Resulting query

plaintext

/home/user/../../etc/passwd

The following example assigns some character values to a list of characters and prints them each individually, and then as a string. The third character value is intended to be an integer taken from user input and converted to an int. The first print statement will print each character separated by a space.

Vulnerable example

char *foo;

However, if a NULL byte is read from stdin by fgetc, then it will return 0. When foo is printed as a string, the 0 at character foo[2] will act as a NULL terminator, and the second printf() statement will not print foo[3].

CWE-138: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements

Overview

Real-world CVEs

Common consequences

How it happens

When it is introduced

How to prevent it

Code examples

Illustrative examples

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

Attack patterns

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-138?

What CVEs are caused by CWE-138?

How do you prevent CWE-138?

What are the consequences of CWE-138?

Is CWE-138 actively exploited?

References

Stay ahead of CWE-138

Overview

Real-world CVEs

Common consequences

How it happens

When it is introduced

How to prevent it

Code examples

Illustrative examples

Related weaknesses

Parent

Child

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

Attack patterns

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-138?

What CVEs are caused by CWE-138?

How do you prevent CWE-138?

What are the consequences of CWE-138?

Is CWE-138 actively exploited?

References

Stay ahead of CWE-138