Variant weakness

Draft

CWE-152: Improper Neutralization of Macro Symbols

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

Last updated May 1, 2026

0

Recorded CVEs

With this primary weakness

0

KEVs

In the CISA KEV catalog

Not rated

Likelihood of exploit

Per MITRE

Variant

Abstraction

MITRE classification

Overview

CWE-152 (Improper Neutralization of Macro Symbols) is a variant-level software weakness catalogued by MITRE in the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE). It describes a recurring type of mistake that can lead to exploitable security vulnerabilities.

Common consequences

What can happen when CWE-152 is exploited.

Unexpected State

Affects: Integrity

How it happens

When it is introduced

Typically introduced during these phases of the software lifecycle.

Implementation

How to prevent it

Practical mitigations for CWE-152, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.

Implementation

Input Validation

Developers should anticipate that macro symbols 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.

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

Output Encoding

Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.

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.

Illustrative examples

Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.

CVE-2002-0770 — Server trusts client to expand macros, allows macro characters to be expanded to trigger resultant information exposure.
CVE-2008-2018 — Attacker can obtain sensitive information from a database by using a comment containing a macro, which inserts the data during expansion.

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

PLOVER: Macro Symbol
Software Fault Patterns: Tainted input to command (SFP24)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about CWE-152.

What is CWE-152?

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

How do you prevent CWE-152?

Developers should anticipate that macro symbols 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-152?

Exploiting CWE-152 can lead to: Unexpected State.

References

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-152

Get alerted the moment a new CWE-152 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.

Start free See pricing

Overview

Common consequences

How it happens

When it is introduced

How to prevent it

Illustrative examples

Related weaknesses

Parent

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-152?

How do you prevent CWE-152?

What are the consequences of CWE-152?

References

Stay ahead of CWE-152