CWE-81: Improper Neutralization of Script in an Error Message Web Page
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to an error page.
Last updated
Overview
Error pages may include customized 403 Forbidden or 404 Not Found pages. When an attacker can trigger an error that contains script syntax within the attacker's input, then cross-site scripting attacks may be possible.
Real-world CVEs
6 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-81 (Improper Neutralization of Script in an Error Message Web Page). The highest-severity and most recent are shown first. 1 new CWE-81 CVE has been recorded so far in 2026 (1 in 2025).
- CVE-2022-4361Critical · CVSS 10.0 · EPSS 46th2023-07-07
- CVE-2022-4137High · CVSS 8.1 · EPSS 63th2023-09-25
- CVE-2026-41568
Moby: Race condition in docker cp allows creation of arbitrary empty files on the host via symlink swap
Medium · CVSS 6.1 · EPSS 1th2026-06-12 - CVE-2024-6892Medium · CVSS 6.1 · EPSS 51th2024-08-07
- CVE-2019-25027
Reflected cross-site scripting in default RouteNotFoundError view in Vaadin 10 and 11-13
Medium · CVSS 6.1 · EPSS 48th2021-04-23 - CVE-2025-0883
vulnerability has been discovered in OpenText™ Service Manager.
Low · CVSS 2.1 · EPSS 22th2025-03-12
Common consequences
What can happen when CWE-81 is exploited.
Read Application Data, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Affects: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability
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-81, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.
Do not write user-controlled input to error pages.
Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. We often encounter data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
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.
The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Effectiveness: Defense in Depth
How to detect it
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.)
Illustrative examples
Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.
- CVE-2002-0840 — XSS in default error page from Host: header.
- CVE-2002-1053 — XSS in error message.
- CVE-2002-1700 — XSS in error page from targeted parameter.
Terminology & mappings
Mapped taxonomies
- PLOVER: XSS in error pages
- Software Fault Patterns: Tainted input to command (SFP24)
Attack patterns
CAPEC attack patterns that exploit this weakness.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about CWE-81.
- What is CWE-81?
- The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to an error page.
- What CVEs are caused by CWE-81?
- 6 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-81, including CVE-2022-4361, CVE-2022-4137, CVE-2026-41568.
- How do you prevent CWE-81?
- Do not write user-controlled input to error pages.
- How is CWE-81 detected?
- 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.)
- What are the consequences of CWE-81?
- Exploiting CWE-81 can lead to: Read Application Data, Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands.
- Is CWE-81 actively exploited?
- 6 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-81; none are currently in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws.
References
- MITRE CWE definition (CWE-81) (opens in a new tab)
- CWE-81 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-81
Get alerted the moment a new CWE-81 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.