CWE · MITRE source
CWE-943Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Data Query Logic
The product generates a query intended to access or manipulate data in a data store such as a database, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that can modify the intended logic of the query.
Depending on the capabilities of the query language, an attacker could inject additional logic into the query to: The ability to execute additional commands or change which entities are returned has obvious risks. But when the product logic depends on the order or number of entities, this can also lead to vulnerabilities. For example, if the query expects to return only one entity that specifies an administrative user, but an attacker can change which entities are returned, this could cause the logic to return information for a regular user and incorrectly assume that the user has administrative privileges. While this weakness is most commonly associated with SQL injection, there are many other query languages that are also subject to injection attacks, including HTSQL, LDAP, DQL, XQuery, Xpath, and "NoSQL" languages.
Last updated: 04 July 2026 00:28 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: mostly · 2 mapping(s) from 2 framework(s): ATT&CK 1 (mostly) · CAPEC 1 (partial)
NIST 800-53 r5 controls that address this weakness (0)AI
| 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). Drafted by Grok and spot-checked by Claude Opus 4.8.
Direction: ← other covers this;
→ this covers other (F/M/P = full / mostly /
partial).
Top CVEs of this weakness type, ranked by Risk Priority
| CVE | Risk | CVSS | EPSS | Published |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CVE-2020-36195 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0176 | 2021-04-17 |
CVE-2022-36084 | 7.0 | 9.9 | 0.0113 | 2022-09-08 |
CVE-2024-4872 | 7.0 | 9.9 | 0.0050 | 2024-08-27 |
CVE-2026-29793 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0046 | 2026-03-10 |
CVE-2026-32248 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0063 | 2026-03-12 |
CVE-2026-40351 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0063 | 2026-04-17 |
CVE-2026-41274 | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0050 | 2026-04-23 |
CVE-2026-41327 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0042 | 2026-04-24 |
CVE-2026-41328 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0034 | 2026-04-24 |
CVE-2026-45688 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0029 | 2026-06-24 |
CVE-2026-45689 | 7.0 | 9.1 | 0.0031 | 2026-06-24 |
CVE-2026-54350 | 7.0 | 10.0 | 0.0054 | 2026-06-26 |
CVE-2017-12904 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0640 | 2017-08-23 |
CVE-2018-7829 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0172 | 2019-05-22 |
CVE-2020-5257 | 5.5 | 7.7 | 0.0090 | 2020-03-13 |
CVE-2018-19952 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0125 | 2020-11-02 |
CVE-2025-24787 | 5.5 | 8.6 | 0.0053 | 2025-02-06 |
CVE-2026-25513 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0047 | 2026-02-04 |
CVE-2026-25514 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0047 | 2026-02-04 |
CVE-2026-28211 | 5.5 | 7.8 | 0.0020 | 2026-02-26 |
CVE-2026-30941 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 0.0046 | 2026-03-10 |
CVE-2026-32247 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 0.0034 | 2026-03-12 |
CVE-2026-3023 | 5.5 | 8.8 | 0.0033 | 2026-03-16 |
CVE-2026-22558 | 5.5 | 7.7 | 0.0055 | 2026-03-19 |
CVE-2026-33980 | 5.5 | 8.3 | 0.0040 | 2026-03-27 |