CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
Also known as: Open Redirect, Cross-site Redirect, Cross-domain Redirect, Unvalidated Redirect, Drive-by download
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Last updated
Overview
CWE-601 (URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')) is a base-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.
Background
Phishing is a general term for deceptive attempts to coerce private information from users that will be used for identity theft.
Real-world CVEs
1,076 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-601 (URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')), including 1 in CISA's KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) catalog. KEVs are shown first. 312 new CWE-601 CVEs have been recorded so far in 2026 (245 in 2025).
- CVE-2012-0518CISA KEVMedium · CVSS 5.1 · EPSS 91th2012-10-16
- CVE-2025-43526Critical · CVSS 9.8 · EPSS 42th2025-12-17
- CVE-2025-55031
Passkey phishing within Bluetooth range
Critical · CVSS 9.8 · EPSS 34th2025-08-19 - CVE-2024-22891Critical · CVSS 9.8 · EPSS 75th2024-03-01
- CVE-2026-70958Critical · CVSS 9.6 · EPSS 31th2026-08-18
- CVE-2026-61097Critical · CVSS 9.6 · EPSS 8th2026-07-21
- CVE-2026-6795
Open Redirect in DivvyDrive Information Technologies' DivvyDrive
Critical · CVSS 9.6 · EPSS 14th2026-05-07 - CVE-2026-23818
Open Redirect Vulnerability in HPE Aruba Networking Private 5G Core On-Prem
Critical · CVSS 9.6 · EPSS 25th2026-04-07 - CVE-2022-40083Critical · CVSS 9.6 · EPSS 83th2022-09-28
- CVE-2026-61451
Grav before 1.0.4 Password Reset Token Poisoning via admin_base_url
Critical · CVSS 9.4 · EPSS 35th2026-07-15 - CVE-2026-71428
unstructured: Server-Side Request Forgery in the URL-based partitioning
Critical · CVSS 9.3 · EPSS 16th2026-08-20 - CVE-2026-8152
Unblu Spark Open Redirect leading to DOM-Based XSS
Critical · CVSS 9.3 · EPSS 34th2026-07-22
Showing 12 of 1,076 recorded CWE-601 CVEs. Track new ones as they are published and get AI-written analysis and fixes.
Monitor CWE-601 vulnerabilitiesCommon consequences
What can happen when CWE-601 is exploited.
Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity
Affects: Access Control
The user may be redirected to an untrusted page that contains malware which may then compromise the user's system. In some cases, an open redirect can also enable the immediate download of a file without the user's permission, because the redirection to an external site may lead to endpoints on those sites that automatically trigger a download action ("drive-by download" [REF-1478]). This will expose the user to extensive risk. The user's interaction with the web server may also be compromised if the malware conducts keylogging or other attacks that steal credentials, personally identifiable information (PII), or other important data.
Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Other
Affects: Access Control, Confidentiality, Other
By modifying the URL value to a malicious site, an attacker may successfully launch a phishing scam. The user may be subjected to phishing attacks by being redirected to an untrusted page. The phishing attack may point to an attacker controlled web page that appears to be a trusted web site. The phishers may then steal the user's credentials and then use these credentials to access the legitimate web site. Because the server name in the modified link is identical to the original site, phishing attempts have a more trustworthy appearance.
How it happens
When it is introduced
Typically introduced during these phases of the software lifecycle.
Applies to
Technologies
How to prevent it
Practical mitigations for CWE-601, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.
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.
Use a list of approved URLs or domains to be used for redirection.
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
For example, ID 1 could map to "/login.asp" and ID 2 could map to "http://www.example.com/". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap [REF-45] provide this capability.
Ensure that no externally-supplied requests are honored by requiring that all redirect requests include a unique nonce generated by the application [REF-483]. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Many open redirect problems occur because the programmer assumed that certain inputs could not be modified, such as cookies and hidden form fields.
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Effectiveness: Moderate — An application firewall might not cover all possible input vectors. In addition, attack techniques might be available to bypass the protection mechanism, such as using malformed inputs that can still be processed by the component that receives those inputs. Depending on functionality, an application firewall might inadvertently reject or modify legitimate requests. Finally, some manual effort may be required for customization.
How to detect it
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.
Effectiveness: High
Automated Dynamic Analysis
Automated black box tools that supply URLs to every input may be able to spot Location header modifications, but test case coverage is a factor, and custom redirects may not be detected.
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis tools may not be able to determine whether input influences the beginning of a URL, which is important for reducing false positives.
Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)
Effectiveness: High
Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: High
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: High
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: High
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: High
Architecture or Design Review
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: High
Code examples
Illustrative examples from MITRE showing how the weakness appears in code.
The following code obtains a URL from the query string and then redirects the user to that URL.
Vulnerable example
$redirect_url = $_GET['url'];Attack input
http://example.com/example.php?url=http://malicious.example.comThe following code is a Java servlet that will receive a GET request with a url parameter in the request to redirect the browser to the address specified in the url parameter. The servlet will retrieve the url parameter value from the request and send a response to redirect the browser to the url address.
Vulnerable example
public class RedirectServlet extends HttpServlet {Attack input
<a href="http://bank.example.com/redirect?url=http://attacker.example.net">Click here to log in</a>Illustrative examples
Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.
- CVE-2005-4206 — URL parameter loads the URL into a frame and causes it to appear to be part of a valid page.
- CVE-2008-2951 — An open redirect vulnerability in the search script in the software allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL as a parameter to the proper function.
- CVE-2008-2052 — Open redirect vulnerability in the software allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in the proper parameter.
- CVE-2020-11053 — Chain: Go-based Oauth2 reverse proxy can send the authenticated user to another site at the end of the authentication flow. A redirect URL with HTML-encoded whitespace characters can bypass the validation (CWE-1289) to redirect to a malicious site (CWE-601)
Terminology & mappings
Alternate terms
- Open Redirect
- Cross-site Redirect
- Cross-domain Redirect
- Unvalidated Redirect
- Drive-by download
- an attack, sometimes enabled by open redirects, which redirects the victim to a site that automatically triggers a download action of malicious software or files
Mapped taxonomies
- WASC: URl Redirector Abuse (38)
- Software Fault Patterns: Tainted input to command (SFP24)
Attack patterns
CAPEC attack patterns that exploit this weakness.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about CWE-601.
- What is CWE-601?
- The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
- What CVEs are caused by CWE-601?
- 1,076 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-601, including CVE-2012-0518, CVE-2025-43526, CVE-2025-55031. 1 are listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.
- How do you prevent CWE-601?
- 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.
- How is CWE-601 detected?
- 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.
- What are the consequences of CWE-601?
- Exploiting CWE-601 can lead to: Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Other.
- Is CWE-601 actively exploited?
- Yes. 1 CWE-601 vulnerabilities are in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws, out of 1,076 recorded CVEs.
References
- MITRE CWE definition (CWE-601) (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-601 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-601
Get alerted the moment a new CWE-601 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.