CWE-622 Variant Draft

Improper Validation of Function Hook Arguments

This vulnerability occurs when an application adds monitoring or interception hooks to critical functions, but fails to properly check the arguments passed to those hooks. This lack of validation…

Definition

What is CWE-622?

This vulnerability occurs when an application adds monitoring or interception hooks to critical functions, but fails to properly check the arguments passed to those hooks. This lack of validation can allow attackers to inject malicious data, leading to security bypasses or system compromise.
Function hooks are commonly used by security and monitoring software—like antivirus or firewalls—to intercept system or API calls. When these hooks are placed into user-accessible functions without validating the arguments, the protective software itself becomes a target. Attackers can craft malicious inputs that exploit the unvalidated hook logic, potentially disabling the protection or using its privileged access to attack the underlying system. For developers, the core issue is trusting intercepted arguments without applying the same rigorous validation expected of the original function. To prevent this, always validate and sanitize all data processed by a hook with the same rules as the hooked function itself. Treat the hook as a critical gatekeeper, not just a passive observer, to ensure it cannot be manipulated into undermining the very security it's meant to enforce.
Real-world impact

Real-world CVEs caused by CWE-622

  • CVE-2007-0708

    DoS in firewall using standard Microsoft functions

  • CVE-2006-7160

    DoS in firewall using standard Microsoft functions

  • CVE-2007-1376

    function does not verify that its argument is the proper type, leading to arbitrary memory write

  • CVE-2007-1220

    invalid syscall arguments bypass code execution limits

  • CVE-2006-4541

    DoS in IDS via NULL argument

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-622

  • Architecture and Design Ensure that all arguments are verified, as defined by the API you are protecting.
  • Architecture and Design Drop privileges before invoking such functions, if possible.
Detection signals

How to detect CWE-622

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-622 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-622?

This vulnerability occurs when an application adds monitoring or interception hooks to critical functions, but fails to properly check the arguments passed to those hooks. This lack of validation can allow attackers to inject malicious data, leading to security bypasses or system compromise.

How serious is CWE-622?

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-622?

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

How can I prevent CWE-622?

Ensure that all arguments are verified, as defined by the API you are protecting. Drop privileges before invoking such functions, if possible.

How does Plexicus detect and fix CWE-622?

Plexicus's SAST engine matches the data-flow signature for CWE-622 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-622?

MITRE publishes the canonical definition at https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/622.html. You can also reference OWASP and NIST documentation for adjacent guidance.

Related weaknesses

Weaknesses related to CWE-622

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.

Get started free Book a demo