CWE-357 Base Draft

Insufficient UI Warning of Dangerous Operations

This vulnerability occurs when a software application does present a warning to a user before a risky action, but the warning is designed or placed in a way that makes it too easy to miss, ignore,…

Definition

What is CWE-357?

This vulnerability occurs when a software application does present a warning to a user before a risky action, but the warning is designed or placed in a way that makes it too easy to miss, ignore, or accidentally dismiss.
Effective security warnings must actively capture user attention to be useful. A warning that is subtle, buried in other text, uses unclear language, or can be dismissed with a single click fails its primary purpose. This often happens when designers prioritize a clean user interface over security communication, or when warnings become so frequent that users habitually click through them—a phenomenon known as 'warning fatigue.' The core risk is that users may unintentionally perform dangerous operations like deleting critical data, overwriting files, or granting excessive permissions. To prevent this, warnings should be prominent, require a deliberate action to acknowledge (like typing a confirmation word), and clearly explain the consequences. For developers, this means implementing modal dialogs for critical actions, using contrasting colors and icons, and avoiding pre-selected 'OK' buttons to force conscious user interaction.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-357

  • CVE-2007-1099

    User not sufficiently warned if host key mismatch occurs

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-357

  • 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-357

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-357 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-357?

This vulnerability occurs when a software application does present a warning to a user before a risky action, but the warning is designed or placed in a way that makes it too easy to miss, ignore, or accidentally dismiss.

How serious is CWE-357?

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-357?

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

How can I prevent CWE-357?

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-357?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-357 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-357?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/357.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-357

CWE-693 Parent

Protection Mechanism Failure

This weakness occurs when software either lacks a necessary security control, implements one that is too weak, or fails to activate an…

CWE-1039 Sibling

Inadequate Detection or Handling of Adversarial Input Perturbations in Automated Recognition Mechanism

This vulnerability occurs when a system uses automated AI or machine learning to classify complex inputs like images, audio, or text, but…

CWE-1248 Sibling

Semiconductor Defects in Hardware Logic with Security-Sensitive Implications

A security-critical hardware component contains physical flaws in its semiconductor material, which can cause it to malfunction and…

CWE-1253 Sibling

Incorrect Selection of Fuse Values

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware security fuse is incorrectly programmed to represent a 'secure' state as logic 0 (unblown). An…

CWE-1269 Sibling

Product Released in Non-Release Configuration

This vulnerability occurs when a product ships to customers while still configured with its pre-production or manufacturing settings,…

CWE-1278 Sibling

Missing Protection Against Hardware Reverse Engineering Using Integrated Circuit (IC) Imaging Techniques

This vulnerability occurs when hardware lacks safeguards against physical inspection, allowing attackers to extract sensitive data by…

CWE-1291 Sibling

Public Key Re-Use for Signing both Debug and Production Code

This vulnerability occurs when the same cryptographic key is used to sign both development/debug software builds and final production…

CWE-1318 Sibling

Missing Support for Security Features in On-chip Fabrics or Buses

This vulnerability occurs when the communication channels (fabrics or buses) within a chip lack built-in or enabled security features,…

CWE-1319 Sibling

Improper Protection against Electromagnetic Fault Injection (EM-FI)

This vulnerability occurs when a hardware device lacks sufficient shielding against electromagnetic interference, allowing attackers to…

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.