CWE-807: Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
Last updated
Overview
Developers may assume that inputs such as cookies, environment variables, and hidden form fields cannot be modified. However, an attacker could change these inputs using customized clients or other attacks. This change might not be detected. When security decisions such as authentication and authorization are made based on the values of these inputs, attackers can bypass the security of the software. Without sufficient encryption, integrity checking, or other mechanism, any input that originates from an outsider cannot be trusted.
Real-world CVEs
63 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-807 (Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision), including 2 in CISA's KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) catalog. KEVs are shown first. 32 new CWE-807 CVEs have been recorded so far in 2026 (16 in 2025).
- CVE-2026-21514CISA KEV
Microsoft Word Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
High · CVSS 8.4 · EPSS 72th2026-02-10 - CVE-2026-21509CISA KEV
Microsoft Office Security Feature Bypass Vulnerability
High · CVSS 8.4 · EPSS 99th2026-01-26 - CVE-2026-6213
Remote Spark SparkView RCE
Critical · CVSS 10.0 · EPSS 25th2026-05-08 - CVE-2025-12487
oobabooga text-generation-webui trust_remote_code Reliance on Untrusted Inputs Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Critical · CVSS 9.8 · EPSS 54th2025-11-06 - CVE-2025-12488
oobabooga text-generation-webui trust_remote_code Reliance on Untrusted Inputs Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
Critical · CVSS 9.8 · EPSS 54th2025-11-06 - CVE-2025-13926
Contemporary Controls BASC 20T Reliance on Untrusted Inputs in a Security Decision
Critical · CVSS 9.3 · EPSS 36th2026-04-09 - CVE-2025-1126
Lexmark has identified a vulnerability in our Lexmark Print Management Client (LPMC).
Critical · CVSS 9.3 · EPSS 16th2025-02-11 - CVE-2024-51561Critical · CVSS 9.3 · EPSS 41th2024-11-04
- CVE-2025-49827
Conjur OSS and Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted (formerly Conjur Enterprise) Vulnerable to Bypass of IAM Authenticator
Critical · CVSS 9.1 · EPSS 70th2025-07-15 - CVE-2024-29039Critical · CVSS 9.1 · EPSS 58th2024-06-28
- CVE-2024-55354High · CVSS 8.8 · EPSS 5th2025-04-08
- CVE-2024-28824High · CVSS 8.8 · EPSS 8th2024-03-22
Showing 12 of 63 recorded CWE-807 CVEs. Track new ones as they are published and get AI-written analysis and fixes.
Monitor CWE-807 vulnerabilitiesCommon consequences
What can happen when CWE-807 is exploited.
Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Varies by Context
Affects: Confidentiality, Access Control, Availability, Other
Attackers can bypass the security decision to access whatever is being protected. The consequences will depend on the associated functionality, but they can range from granting additional privileges to untrusted users to bypassing important security checks. Ultimately, this weakness may lead to exposure or modification of sensitive data, system crash, or execution of arbitrary code.
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-807, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.
Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
Ensure that the system definitively and unambiguously keeps track of its own state and user state and has rules defined for legitimate state transitions. Do not allow any application user to affect state directly in any way other than through legitimate actions leading to state transitions.
If information must be stored on the client, do not do so without encryption and integrity checking, or otherwise having a mechanism on the server side to catch tampering. Use a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm, such as Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC) [REF-529]. Apply this against the state or sensitive data that has to be exposed, which can guarantee the integrity of the data - i.e., that the data has not been modified. Ensure that a strong hash function is used (CWE-328).
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
With a stateless protocol such as HTTP, use a framework that maintains the state for you.
Examples include ASP.NET View State [REF-756] and the OWASP ESAPI Session Management feature [REF-45].
Be careful of language features that provide state support, since these might be provided as a convenience to the programmer and may not be considering security.
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
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.
Identify all inputs that are used for security decisions and determine if you can modify the design so that you do not have to rely on submitted inputs at all. For example, you may be able to keep critical information about the user's session on the server side instead of recording it within external data.
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 Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
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: SOAR Partial
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 excerpt reads a value from a browser cookie to determine the role of the user.
Vulnerable example
Cookie[] cookies = request.getCookies();The following code could be for a medical records application. It performs authentication by checking if a cookie has been set.
Vulnerable example
$auth = $_COOKIES['authenticated'];In the following example, an authentication flag is read from a browser cookie, thus allowing for external control of user state data.
Vulnerable example
Cookie[] cookies = request.getCookies();The following code samples use a DNS lookup in order to decide whether or not an inbound request is from a trusted host. If an attacker can poison the DNS cache, they can gain trusted status.
Vulnerable example
struct hostent *hp;struct in_addr myaddr;Vulnerable example
String ip = request.getRemoteAddr();Vulnerable example
IPAddress hostIPAddress = IPAddress.Parse(RemoteIpAddress);IP addresses are more reliable than DNS names, but they can also be spoofed. Attackers can easily forge the source IP address of the packets they send, but response packets will return to the forged IP address. To see the response packets, the attacker has to sniff the traffic between the victim machine and the forged IP address. In order to accomplish the required sniffing, attackers typically attempt to locate themselves on the same subnet as the victim machine. Attackers may be able to circumvent this requirement by using source routing, but source routing is disabled across much of the Internet today. In summary, IP address verification can be a useful part of an authentication scheme, but it should not be the single factor required for authentication.
Illustrative examples
Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.
- CVE-2009-1549 — Attacker can bypass authentication by setting a cookie to a specific value.
- CVE-2009-1619 — Attacker can bypass authentication and gain admin privileges by setting an "admin" cookie to 1.
- CVE-2009-0864 — Content management system allows admin privileges by setting a "login" cookie to "OK."
- CVE-2008-5784 — e-dating application allows admin privileges by setting the admin cookie to 1.
- CVE-2008-6291 — Web-based email list manager allows attackers to gain admin privileges by setting a login cookie to "admin."
Terminology & mappings
Mapped taxonomies
- The CERT Oracle Secure Coding Standard for Java (2011): Do not base security checks on untrusted sources (SEC09-J)
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about CWE-807.
- What is CWE-807?
- The product uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of an input, but the input can be modified by an untrusted actor in a way that bypasses the protection mechanism.
- What CVEs are caused by CWE-807?
- 63 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-807, including CVE-2026-21514, CVE-2026-21509, CVE-2026-6213. 2 are listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog.
- How do you prevent CWE-807?
- Store state information and sensitive data on the server side only.
- How is CWE-807 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-807?
- Exploiting CWE-807 can lead to: Bypass Protection Mechanism, Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Varies by Context.
- Is CWE-807 actively exploited?
- Yes. 2 CWE-807 vulnerabilities are in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws, out of 63 recorded CVEs.
References
- MITRE CWE definition (CWE-807) (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-807 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-807
Get alerted the moment a new CWE-807 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.