CWE-147: Improper Neutralization of Input Terminators
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as input terminators when they are sent to a downstream component.
Last updated
Overview
For example, a "." in SMTP signifies the end of mail message data, whereas a null character can be used for the end of a string.
Real-world CVEs
2 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-147 (Improper Neutralization of Input Terminators). The highest-severity and most recent are shown first. 0 new CWE-147 CVEs have been recorded so far in 2026 (1 in 2025).
Common consequences
What can happen when CWE-147 is exploited.
Unexpected State
Affects: Integrity
How it happens
When it is introduced
Typically introduced during these phases of the software lifecycle.
How to prevent it
Practical mitigations for CWE-147, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.
Developers should anticipate that terminators will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
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.
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).
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.
Illustrative examples
Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.
- CVE-2000-0319 — MFV. mail server does not properly identify terminator string to signify end of message, causing corruption, possibly in conjunction with off-by-one error.
- CVE-2000-0320 — MFV. mail server does not properly identify terminator string to signify end of message, causing corruption, possibly in conjunction with off-by-one error.
- CVE-2001-0996 — Mail server does not quote end-of-input terminator if it appears in the middle of a message.
- CVE-2002-0001 — Improperly terminated comment or phrase allows commands.
Terminology & mappings
Mapped taxonomies
- PLOVER: Input Terminator
- Software Fault Patterns: Tainted input to command (SFP24)
Attack patterns
CAPEC attack patterns that exploit this weakness.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about CWE-147.
- What is CWE-147?
- The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could be interpreted as input terminators when they are sent to a downstream component.
- What CVEs are caused by CWE-147?
- 2 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-147, including CVE-2025-7962, CVE-2024-52505.
- How do you prevent CWE-147?
- Developers should anticipate that terminators will be injected/removed/manipulated in the input vectors of their product. Use an appropriate combination of denylists and allowlists to ensure only valid, expected and appropriate input is processed by the system.
- What are the consequences of CWE-147?
- Exploiting CWE-147 can lead to: Unexpected State.
- Is CWE-147 actively exploited?
- 2 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-147; none are currently in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws.
References
- MITRE CWE definition (CWE-147) (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-147 vulnerabilities on NVD (opens in a new tab)
- Learn: What is a CWE?
Weakness data is sourced from the MITRE CWE catalog (v4.20). CVE associations are aggregated and kept current by RadicalNotion.AI.
Stay ahead of CWE-147
Get alerted the moment a new CWE-147 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.