CWE-292 Variant Deprecated

DEPRECATED: Trusting Self-reported DNS Name

This entry is a duplicate and has been consolidated into CWE-350: Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action. The content from this deprecated entry has been fully migrated to…

Definition

What is CWE-292?

This entry is a duplicate and has been consolidated into CWE-350: Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action. The content from this deprecated entry has been fully migrated to CWE-350.
This weakness, now documented under CWE-350, occurs when an application uses a client's self-reported DNS hostname (obtained via a reverse DNS lookup) to make a security decision, such as granting access or trusting data. Attackers can easily spoof or poison DNS records to make their connection appear to originate from a trusted domain, bypassing these flawed checks. Relying on this easily forged information creates a significant vulnerability in your authentication or authorization logic. To address this, you should never use a reverse DNS lookup result as the sole factor for a security-critical action. Instead, implement proper authentication mechanisms like certificates, API keys, or tokens that are cryptographically secure and cannot be spoofed at the DNS level. Always validate the actual source and integrity of connections using these stronger, dedicated security protocols.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-292

No public CVE references are linked to this CWE in MITRE's catalog yet.

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-292

  • Architecture Use safe-by-default frameworks and APIs that prevent the unsafe pattern from being expressible.
  • Implementation Validate input at trust boundaries; use allowlists, not denylists.
  • Implementation Apply the principle of least privilege to credentials, file paths, and runtime permissions.
  • Testing Cover this weakness in CI: SAST rules + targeted unit tests for the data flow.
  • Operation Monitor logs for the runtime signals listed in the next section.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-292

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-292 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-292?

This entry is a duplicate and has been consolidated into CWE-350: Reliance on Reverse DNS Resolution for a Security-Critical Action. The content from this deprecated entry has been fully migrated to CWE-350.

How serious is CWE-292?

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-292?

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

How can I prevent CWE-292?

Use safe-by-default frameworks, validate untrusted input at trust boundaries, and apply the principle of least privilege. Cover the data-flow signature in CI with SAST.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-292?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-292 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-292?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/292.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-292

No related weaknesses indexed for this CWE.

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.

Get started free Book a demo