What CVEs are caused by CWE-160?

1 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-160, including CVE-2010-0386.

What are the consequences of CWE-160?

Exploiting CWE-160 can lead to: Unexpected State.

Is CWE-160 actively exploited?

1 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-160; none are currently in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws.

RadicalNotion.AI

Log in Start free

Log in

Log in Start free

Variant weakness

Incomplete

CWE-160: Improper Neutralization of Leading Special Elements

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

Last updated May 1, 2026

1

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

As data is parsed, improperly handled leading special elements may cause the process to take unexpected actions that result in an attack.

Real-world CVEs

1 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-160 (Improper Neutralization of Leading Special Elements). The highest-severity and most recent are shown first.

CVE-2010-0386
High · CVSS 8.1 · EPSS 75th
2010-01-25

Common consequences

What can happen when CWE-160 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-160, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.

Developers should anticipate that leading special elements 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

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).

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-2002-1345 — Multiple FTP clients write arbitrary files via absolute paths in server responses

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

PLOVER: Leading Special Element
Software Fault Patterns: Tainted input to command (SFP24)

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about CWE-160.

What is CWE-160?: The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes leading special elements that could be interpreted in unexpected ways when they are sent to a downstream component.
What CVEs are caused by CWE-160?: 1 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-160, including CVE-2010-0386.
How do you prevent CWE-160?: Developers should anticipate that leading special elements 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-160?: Exploiting CWE-160 can lead to: Unexpected State.
Is CWE-160 actively exploited?: 1 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-160; none are currently in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws.

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-160

Get alerted the moment a new CWE-160 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.

Start free See pricing

Overview

Real-world CVEs

Common consequences

How it happens

When it is introduced

How to prevent it

Illustrative examples

Related weaknesses

Parent

Child

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

Frequently asked questions

References

Stay ahead of CWE-160