CWE · MITRE source
CWE-427Uncontrolled Search Path Element
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
Although this weakness can occur with any type of resource, it is frequently introduced when a product uses a directory search path to find executables or code libraries, but the path contains a directory that can be modified by an attacker, such as "/tmp" or the current working directory. In Windows-based systems, when the LoadLibrary or LoadLibraryEx function is called with a DLL name that does not contain a fully qualified path, the function follows a search order that includes two path elements that might be uncontrolled: In some cases, the attack can be conducted remotely, such as when SMB or WebDAV network shares are used. One or more locations in that path could include the Windows drive root or its subdirectories. This often exists in Linux-based code assuming the controlled nature of the root directory (/) or its subdirectories (/etc, etc), or a code that recursively accesses the parent directory. In Windows, the drive root and some of its subdirectories have weak permissions by default, which makes them uncontrolled. In some Unix-based systems, a PATH might be created that contains an empty element, e.g. by splicing an empty variable into the PATH. This empty element can be interpreted as equivalent to the current working directory, which might be an untrusted search element. In software package management frameworks (e.g., npm, RubyGems, or PyPi), the framework may identify dependencies on third-party libraries or other packages, then consult a repository that contains the desired package. The framework may search a public repository before a private repository. This could be exploited by attackers by placing a malicious package in the public repository that has the same name as a package from the private repository. The search path might not be directly under control of the developer relying on the framework, but this search order effectively contains an untrusted element.
Last updated: 21 August 2026 00:24 UTC
Cumulative inbound coverage
How completely the frameworks we cross-walk collectively cover this — the verdict is the strongest single mapping (overlapping partials are not summed); breadth shows the corroboration behind it.
Collective: partial · 4 mapping(s) from 3 framework(s): CAPEC 2 (partial) · STIG oracle linux 8 1 (partial) · ATT&CK 1 (partial)
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
This weakness contributes to A08:2025 Software or Data Integrity Failures.
Control responseHuman-reviewed
Answering this weakness across the control lifecycle, from our framework cross-walks.
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI-assisted
| Control | Title | Family | Why it addresses this CWE |
|---|---|---|---|
| No NIST controls proposed yet. | |||
MITRE ATT&CK techniques this weakness enables
Our own two-way CWE↔ATT&CK cross-walk — a direct mapping with no public source (the CWE→CAPEC→ATT&CK chain leaves most top weaknesses, incl. XSS and SQLi, mapped to nothing).
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial). gov = governs / implements (a mandate, not coverage).
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2020-27955 UPD | 9.9 | 9.8 | 0.8272 | 2020-11-05 |
CVE-2017-6517 UPD | 9.3 | 9.8 | 0.4634 | 2017-03-23 |
CVE-2020-3433 KEV UPD | 8.5 | 7.8 | 0.1005 | 2020-08-17 |
CVE-2017-3090 UPD | 8.1 | 9.8 | 0.0850 | 2017-06-20 |
CVE-2017-3092 UPD | 8.1 | 9.8 | 0.0850 | 2017-06-20 |
CVE-2017-3097 UPD | 8.1 | 9.8 | 0.0712 | 2017-06-20 |
CVE-2018-12805 UPD | 7.9 | 9.8 | 0.0413 | 2018-07-20 |
CVE-2019-9546 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0278 | 2019-03-01 |
CVE-2020-10515 UPD | 7.8 | 9.8 | 0.0287 | 2020-04-02 |
CVE-2019-7653 UPD | 7.7 | 9.8 | 0.0226 | 2019-02-09 |
CVE-2019-20856 UPD | 7.6 | 9.8 | 0.0144 | 2020-06-19 |
CVE-2021-28955 UPD | 7.6 | 9.8 | 0.0172 | 2021-03-22 |
CVE-2023-25143 UPD | 7.6 | 9.8 | 0.0174 | 2023-03-10 |
CVE-2020-3153 KEV UPD | 7.5 | 6.5 | 0.2745 | 2020-02-19 |
CVE-2022-24955 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0105 | 2022-02-11 |
CVE-2022-34825 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0125 | 2022-11-08 |
CVE-2023-31543 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0119 | 2023-06-30 |
CVE-2024-23054 UPD | 7.5 | 9.8 | 0.0127 | 2024-02-05 |
CVE-2023-53959 UPD | 7.4 | 9.8 | 0.0084 | 2025-12-19 |
CVE-2019-20780 UPD | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0045 | 2020-04-17 |
CVE-2025-65741 UPD | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0051 | 2025-12-09 |
CVE-2019-25268 UPD | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0038 | 2026-01-08 |
CVE-2025-69599 UPD | 7.3 | 9.8 | 0.0039 | 2026-05-08 |
CVE-2024-48990 UPD | 7.1 | 7.8 | 0.1992 | 2024-11-19 |
CVE-2025-4981 UPD | 7.1 | 9.9 | 0.0073 | 2025-06-20 |