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.

Primary

Resultant

Implementation
REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.

Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Read Application Data
Modify Application Data
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.

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.)
High

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.

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

context = new InitialDirContext(env);String searchFilter = "StreetAddress=" + address;NamingEnumeration answer = context.search(searchBase, searchFilter, searchCtls);

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.

CVE-2021-41232
Chain: authentication routine in Go-based agile development product does not escape user name (CWE-116), allowing LDAP injection (CWE-90)
https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2021-41232

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.
https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2005-2301

LDAP injection

A2
Injection Flaws
CWE More Specific

29
LDAP Injection

SFP24
Tainted input to command

Allowed
This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.
Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.

Factors: resultant to special character mismanagement, MAID, or denylist/allowlist problems. Can be primary to authentication and verification errors.

PLOVER
2006-07-19
Draft 3
2006-07-19

Sean Eidemiller
Cigital
2008-07-01
added/updated demonstrative examples

Eric Dalci
Cigital
2008-07-01
updated Time_of_Introduction

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2008-09-08
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-05-27
updated Name

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-10-29
updated Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2010-02-16
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2010-06-21
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Name, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2011-06-01
updated Common_Consequences

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2012-05-11
updated Common_Consequences, Observed_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2012-10-30
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Potential_Mitigations

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2014-06-23
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2014-07-30
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2015-12-07
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2017-11-08
updated Applicable_Platforms, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2018-03-27
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2019-06-20
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2020-02-24
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2020-06-25
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationship_Notes

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2020-08-20
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2020-12-10
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2021-10-28
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2022-04-28
updated Research_Gaps

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2022-10-13
updated Observed_Examples

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-01-31
updated Description

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-04-27
updated Detection_Factors, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-06-29
updated Mapping_Notes

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2024-02-29
4.14
2024-02-29
updated Demonstrative_Examples

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2025-12-11
4.19
2025-12-11
updated Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities

LDAP Injection
Failure to Sanitize Data into LDAP Queries (aka 'LDAP Injection')
Failure to Sanitize Data into LDAP Queries ('LDAP Injection')