CWE-1287 Base Incomplete

Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

This vulnerability occurs when software expects a specific type of data as input but fails to properly check that the incoming data actually matches that type.

Definition

What is CWE-1287?

This vulnerability occurs when software expects a specific type of data as input but fails to properly check that the incoming data actually matches that type.
When software doesn't verify that input matches the expected data type, attackers can feed it malformed data. This can trigger system errors, force the application to behave incorrectly, or expose hidden security flaws that would normally be inaccessible with properly typed input. This issue is most common in programming languages that are not strictly type-safe or that allow explicit conversion between data types. Developers must implement explicit validation checks to ensure input conforms to the expected type before processing it, as relying on implicit assumptions creates a significant security gap.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-1287

  • CVE-2024-37032

    Large language model (LLM) management tool does not validate the format of a digest value (CWE-1287) from a private, untrusted model registry, enabling relative path traversal (CWE-23), a.k.a. Probllama

  • CVE-2008-2223

    SQL injection through an ID that was supposed to be numeric.

How attackers exploit it

Step-by-step attacker path

  1. 1

    Identify a code path that handles untrusted input without validation.

  2. 2

    Craft a payload that exercises the unsafe behavior — injection, traversal, overflow, or logic abuse.

  3. 3

    Deliver the payload through a normal request and observe the application's reaction.

  4. 4

    Iterate until the response leaks data, executes attacker code, or escalates privileges.

Vulnerable code example

Vulnerable pseudo

MITRE has not published a code example for this CWE. The pattern below is illustrative — see Resources for canonical references.

Vulnerable pseudo 
// Example pattern — see MITRE for the canonical references.
function handleRequest(input) {
  // Untrusted input flows directly into the sensitive sink.
  return executeUnsafe(input);
}
Secure code example

Secure pseudo

Secure pseudo 
// Validate, sanitize, or use a safe API before reaching the sink.
function handleRequest(input) {
  const safe = validateAndEscape(input);
  return executeWithGuards(safe);
}
What changed: the unsafe sink is replaced (or the input is validated/escaped) so the same payload no longer triggers the weakness.
Prevention checklist

How to prevent CWE-1287

  • Implementation 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.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-1287

SAST High

Run static analysis (SAST) on the codebase looking for the unsafe pattern in the data flow.

DAST Moderate

Run dynamic application security testing against the live endpoint.

Runtime Moderate

Watch runtime logs for unusual exception traces, malformed input, or authorization bypass attempts.

Code review Moderate

Code review: flag any new code that handles input from this surface without using the validated framework helpers.

Plexicus auto-fix

Plexicus auto-detects CWE-1287 and opens a fix PR in under 60 seconds.

Codex Remedium scans every commit, identifies this exact weakness, and ships a reviewer-ready pull request with the patch. No tickets. No hand-offs.

Get a demo Try Plexicus free
Frequently asked questions

Frequently asked questions

What is CWE-1287?

This vulnerability occurs when software expects a specific type of data as input but fails to properly check that the incoming data actually matches that type.

How serious is CWE-1287?

MITRE has not published a likelihood-of-exploit rating for this weakness. Treat it as medium-impact until your threat model proves otherwise.

What languages or platforms are affected by CWE-1287?

MITRE has not specified affected platforms for this CWE — it can apply across most application stacks.

How can I prevent CWE-1287?

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…

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-1287?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-1287 on every commit. When a match is found, our Codex Remedium agent opens a fix PR with the corrected code, tests, and a one-line summary for the reviewer.

Where can I learn more about CWE-1287?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/1287.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-1287

CWE-20 Parent

Improper Input Validation

This vulnerability occurs when an application accepts data from an external source but fails to properly verify that the data is safe and…

CWE-102 Sibling

Struts: Duplicate Validation Forms

This vulnerability occurs when an application defines multiple Struts validation forms with identical names. The framework then…

CWE-103 Sibling

Struts: Incomplete validate() Method Definition

This vulnerability occurs in a Struts application when a validator form either completely omits a validate() method or includes one but…

CWE-104 Sibling

Struts: Form Bean Does Not Extend Validation Class

This vulnerability occurs in Apache Struts applications when a form bean class does not properly extend the framework's validation class.…

CWE-105 Sibling

Struts: Form Field Without Validator

This vulnerability occurs when a Struts application form contains an input field that lacks a corresponding validator, leaving it open to…

CWE-106 Sibling

Struts: Plug-in Framework not in Use

This weakness occurs when a Java application, particularly one using the Struts framework, does not implement a structured input…

CWE-107 Sibling

Struts: Unused Validation Form

This vulnerability occurs when a Struts application contains validation form definitions that are no longer linked to any active form or…

CWE-108 Sibling

Struts: Unvalidated Action Form

In Apache Struts, every Action Form that processes user input must have a corresponding validation form configured. Missing this…

CWE-109 Sibling

Struts: Validator Turned Off

This vulnerability occurs when an application built with Apache Struts intentionally disables its built-in validation framework. By…

Resources

Further reading

Ready when you are

Don't Let Security
Weigh You Down.

Stop choosing between AI velocity and security debt. Plexicus is the only platform that runs Vibe Coding Security and ASPM in parallel — one workflow, every codebase.