What CVEs are caused by CWE-90?

66 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-90, including CVE-2026-44930, CVE-2026-33289, CVE-2024-54852.

Is CWE-90 part of the OWASP Top 10?

CWE-90 maps to OWASP Top Ten 2007: Injection Flaws (A2) in the OWASP security taxonomy.

Is CWE-90 actively exploited?

66 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-90; none are currently in CISA's KEV catalog of actively exploited flaws.

Base weakness

Draft

CWE-90: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')

The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.

Last updated May 1, 2026

Recorded CVEs

With this primary weakness

KEVs

In the CISA KEV catalog

Not rated

Likelihood of exploit

Per MITRE

Base

Abstraction

MITRE classification

Overview

CWE-90 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')) 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.

Real-world CVEs

66 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-90 (Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an LDAP Query ('LDAP Injection')). The highest-severity and most recent are shown first. 39 new CWE-90 CVEs have been recorded so far in 2026 (10 in 2025).

Showing 12 of 66 recorded CWE-90 CVEs. Track new ones as they are published and get AI-written analysis and fixes.

Monitor CWE-90 vulnerabilities

Common consequences

What can happen when CWE-90 is exploited.

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data

Affects: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability

An attacker could include input that changes the LDAP query which allows unintended commands or code to be executed, allows sensitive data to be read or modified or causes other unintended behavior.

How it happens

When it is introduced

Typically introduced during these phases of the software lifecycle.

Implementation

Applies to

Technologies

Database Server

How to prevent it

Practical mitigations for CWE-90, grouped by where in the lifecycle they apply.

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.

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.)

Effectiveness: High

Code examples

Illustrative examples from MITRE showing how the weakness appears in code.

The code below constructs an LDAP query using user input address data:

Vulnerable example

java

context = new InitialDirContext(env);

Because the code fails to neutralize the address string used to construct the query, an attacker can supply an address that includes additional LDAP queries.

Illustrative examples

Real CVEs that MITRE cites as examples of this weakness.

CVE-2021-41232 — Chain: authentication routine in Go-based agile development product does not escape user name (CWE-116), allowing LDAP injection (CWE-90)
CVE-2005-2301 — Server does not properly escape LDAP queries, which allows remote attackers to cause a DoS and possibly conduct an LDAP injection attack.

Terminology & mappings

Mapped taxonomies

PLOVER: LDAP injection
OWASP Top Ten 2007: Injection Flaws (A2) — CWE More Specific fit
WASC: LDAP Injection (29)
Software Fault Patterns: Tainted input to command (SFP24)

Attack patterns

CAPEC attack patterns that exploit this weakness.

CAPEC-136: LDAP Injection

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about CWE-90.

What is CWE-90?: The product constructs all or part of an LDAP query using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended LDAP query when it is sent to a downstream component.
What CVEs are caused by CWE-90?: 66 recorded CVEs are attributed to CWE-90, including CVE-2026-44930, CVE-2026-33289, CVE-2024-54852.
Is CWE-90 part of the OWASP Top 10?: CWE-90 maps to OWASP Top Ten 2007: Injection Flaws (A2) in the OWASP security taxonomy.
How do you prevent CWE-90?: 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-90 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-90?: Exploiting CWE-90 can lead to: Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data.
Is CWE-90 actively exploited?: 66 recorded CVEs are caused by CWE-90; 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-90

Get alerted the moment a new CWE-90 vulnerability affects your stack, with AI-written analysis, severity context, and remediation guidance.

Start free See pricing