CWE-59

Base Abstraction Level
Pillar — Highest-level weakness category
Class — Abstract, language-independent
Base — Specific enough to detect
Variant — Tied to specific technology
Compound — Requires multiple weaknesses Draft MITRE CWE Status
Stable — Fully reviewed and complete
Draft — Under development, may change
Incomplete — Partially defined by MITRE
Deprecated — No longer recommended
Obsolete — Replaced by another CWE Exploit: Medium
Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following')

Description

The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.

Top Monitored CVEs

CVE-2022-30333
HIGH KEV
7.5 99.0%
2022-05-09
CVE-2020-36193
HIGH KEV
7.5 70.6%
2021-01-18
CVE-2020-0787
HIGH KEV
7.8 42.5%
2020-03-12
CVE-2024-32002
CRITICAL
9.0 25.3%
2024-05-14
CVE-2024-57728
HIGH KEV
7.2 7.5%
2025-01-15
CVE-2024-28189
CRITICAL
10.0 7.2%
2024-04-18
CVE-2024-28185
CRITICAL
10.0 7.1%
2024-04-18
CVE-2025-48384
HIGH KEV
8.0 2.8%
2025-07-08
CVE-2023-29351
HIGH
8.1 1.8%
2023-06-13

Consequences

Confidentiality, Integrity, Access Control — Read Files or Directories, Modify Files or Directories, Bypass Protection Mechanism

An attacker may be able to traverse the file system to unintended locations and read or overwrite the contents of unexpected files. If the files are used for a security mechanism then an attacker may be able to bypass the mechanism.

Other — Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands

Windows simple shortcuts, sometimes referred to as soft links, can be exploited remotely since a ".LNK" file can be uploaded like a normal file. This can enable remote execution.

Mitigations

Phase: Architecture and Design

Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system. Denying access to a file can prevent an attacker from replacing that file with a link to a sensitive file. Ensure good compartmentalization in the system to provide protected areas that can be trusted.

Detection

Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis

Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies

Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Web Application Scanner Web Services Scanner Database Scanners

Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer

Manual Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)

Automated Static Analysis - Source Code

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Cost effective for partial coverage: Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer

Architecture or Design Review

According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: Highly cost effective: Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction Cost effective for partial coverage: Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)