CVE-2023-29195

Security testing and evaluation at multiple SDLC stages directly detects missing or flawed input validation, with the required remediation process ensuring fixes are applied.

Implements explicit check and handling for the exceptional condition of audit logging process failure.

Establishing and monitoring system metrics with correlation and response actions helps identify and address improper handling of exceptional conditions.

Provides a defined response to detected conditions by restricting operation, ensuring exceptional conditions are handled rather than ignored or mishandled.

Contingency training equips users with defined procedures to check and respond to exceptional conditions during disruptions, reducing exploitation of mishandled errors.

Testing verifies the system's ability to detect, handle, and recover from exceptional conditions as part of the plan, reducing exploitability of improper exception handling.

Regular updates keep contingency procedures aligned with system changes, providing structured handling for exceptional conditions that would otherwise allow unmitigated exploitation.

Policy defines checks and handling for exceptional conditions arising from security incidents.

A.8.25 mandates security requirements, secure coding guidelines, checkpoints, testing (incl. code scans) and developer training in the SDLC, which reaches a slice of input validation defects but leaves the majority (incomplete enforcement, second-order inputs, parser differentials, post-validation canonicalization) unaddressed as in the SA-3 and A.8.28 anchors.

Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.

Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.