The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

This could allow an attacker to access or modify system files or other files that are critical to the application.
Path manipulation errors occur when the following two conditions are met:

1. An attacker can specify a path used in an operation on the filesystem.
2. By specifying the resource, the attacker gains a capability that would not otherwise be permitted.

For example, the program may give the attacker the ability to overwrite the specified file or run with a configuration controlled by the attacker.

Primary

Architecture and Design

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

High

Integrity
Confidentiality
Read Files or Directories
Modify Files or Directories
The application can operate on unexpected files. Confidentiality is violated when the targeted filename is not directly readable by the attacker.

Integrity
Confidentiality
Availability
Modify Files or Directories
Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
The application can operate on unexpected files. This may violate integrity if the filename is written to, or if the filename is for a program or other form of executable code.

Availability
DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
DoS: Resource Consumption (Other)
The application can operate on unexpected files. Availability can be violated if the attacker specifies an unexpected file that the application modifies. Availability can also be affected if the attacker specifies a filename for a large file, or points to a special device or a file that does not have the format that the application expects.

Automated Static Analysis

The external control or influence of filenames can often be detected using automated static analysis that models data flow within the product.
Automated static analysis might not be able to recognize when proper input validation is being performed, leading to false positives - i.e., warnings that do not have any security consequences or require any code changes.

Architecture and Design
When the set of filenames is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames, and reject all other inputs. For example, ID 1 could map to "inbox.txt" and ID 2 could map to "profile.txt". Features such as the ESAPI AccessReferenceMap provide this capability.

Architecture and Design
Operation

Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict all access to files within a particular directory.
Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection.
This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise.
Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

Architecture and Design
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.

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.
When validating filenames, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set to be used. If feasible, only allow a single "." character in the filename to avoid weaknesses such as CWE-23, and exclude directory separators such as "/" to avoid CWE-36. Use a list of allowable file extensions, which will help to avoid CWE-434.
Do not rely exclusively on a filtering mechanism that removes potentially dangerous characters. This is equivalent to a denylist, which may be incomplete (CWE-184). For example, filtering "/" is insufficient protection if the filesystem also supports the use of "\" as a directory separator. Another possible error could occur when the filtering is applied in a way that still produces dangerous data (CWE-182). For example, if "../" sequences are removed from the ".../...//" string in a sequential fashion, two instances of "../" would be removed from the original string, but the remaining characters would still form the "../" string.

High

Implementation
Use a built-in path canonicalization function (such as realpath() in C) that produces the canonical version of the pathname, which effectively removes ".." sequences and symbolic links (CWE-23, CWE-59).

Installation
Operation
Use OS-level permissions and run as a low-privileged user to limit the scope of any successful attack.

Operation
Implementation
If you are using PHP, configure your application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop your 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.

Testing
Use tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.

The following code uses input from an HTTP request to create a file name. The programmer has not considered the possibility that an attacker could provide a file name such as "../../tomcat/conf/server.xml", which causes the application to delete one of its own configuration files (CWE-22).

String rName = request.getParameter("reportName");File rFile = new File("/usr/local/apfr/reports/" + rName);...rFile.delete();

The following code uses input from a configuration file to determine which file to open and echo back to the user. If the program runs with privileges and malicious users can change the configuration file, they can use the program to read any file on the system that ends with the extension .txt.

fis = new FileInputStream(cfg.getProperty("sub")+".txt");amt = fis.read(arr);out.println(arr);

CVE-2022-45918
Chain: a learning management tool debugger uses external input to locate previous session logs (CWE-73) and does not properly validate the given path (CWE-20), allowing for filesystem path traversal using "../" sequences (CWE-24)
https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2022-45918

CVE-2008-5748
Chain: external control of values for user's desired language and theme enables path traversal.
https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2008-5748

CVE-2008-5764
Chain: external control of user's target language enables remote file inclusion.
https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2008-5764

Path Manipulation

SFP16
Path Traversal

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.

CWE-114 is a Class, but it is listed a child of CWE-73 in view 1000. This suggests some abstraction problems that should be resolved in future versions.

The external control of filenames can be the primary link in chains with other file-related weaknesses, as seen in the CanPrecede relationships. This is because software systems use files for many different purposes: to execute programs, load code libraries, to store application data, to store configuration settings, record temporary data, act as signals or semaphores to other processes, etc.
However, those weaknesses do not always require external control. For example, link-following weaknesses (CWE-59) often involve pathnames that are not controllable by the attacker at all.
The external control can be resultant from other issues. For example, in PHP applications, the register_globals setting can allow an attacker to modify variables that the programmer thought were immutable, enabling file inclusion (CWE-98) and path traversal (CWE-22). Operating with excessive privileges (CWE-250) might allow an attacker to specify an input filename that is not directly readable by the attacker, but is accessible to the privileged program. A buffer overflow (CWE-119) might give an attacker control over nearby memory locations that are related to pathnames, but were not directly modifiable by the attacker.

7 Pernicious Kingdoms
2006-07-19
Draft 3
2006-07-19

Eric Dalci
Cigital
2008-07-01
updated Time_of_Introduction

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

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-01-12
updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Description, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-03-10
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-07-27
updated Demonstrative_Examples

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-10-29
updated Common_Consequences, Description

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2009-12-28
updated Detection_Factors

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2010-02-16
updated Potential_Mitigations

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2011-06-01
updated Common_Consequences, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2011-09-13
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2012-05-11
updated Demonstrative_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2012-10-30
updated Potential_Mitigations

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

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

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

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

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2021-03-15
updated Maintenance_Notes, Potential_Mitigations

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2021-10-28
updated Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-01-31
updated Description, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-04-27
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-06-29
updated Mapping_Notes

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2023-10-26
updated Observed_Examples

CWE Content Team
MITRE
2025-09-09
4.18
2025-09-09
updated References

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

Path Manipulation