Input Validation Cheat Sheet¶
OWASP Foundation. Input Validation Cheat Sheet. OWASP Cheat Sheet Series.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- Allowlisted Parser or Schema Validator
- Its strength is structural: a positive security model does not require enumerating every bad input, which is why allowlisting is more durable than blocklist filtering, and the typed output it produces removes a whole class of downstream re-interpretation bugs.
This sourceRecommends allowlist-based syntactic and semantic validation because denylisting cannot enumerate the full space of invalid input.
- Its strength is structural: a positive security model does not require enumerating every bad input, which is why allowlisting is more durable than blocklist filtering, and the typed output it produces removes a whole class of downstream re-interpretation bugs.
- Input Validation
- A `tracking_id` must match a fixed pattern; a `weight` must be a positive number under the carrier limit; a `destination` must be one of the known warehouse codes on an allowlist
This sourceRecommends validating required input with full-string patterns, numeric ranges, and explicit arrays of allowed values.
- A `tracking_id` must match a fixed pattern; a `weight` must be a positive number under the carrier limit; a `destination` must be one of the known warehouse codes on an allowlist
- Input Validation Gate
- Over-aggressive coercion is the subtle one — a gate that "helpfully" reshapes borderline input can admit values the caller never intended, quietly enlarging the effective domain; the safe stance is to validate strictly and cross the trust boundary only with values that provably belong.
This sourceRecommends allowlist-based syntactic and semantic input validation for all untrusted data before it is processed.
- Over-aggressive coercion is the subtle one — a gate that "helpfully" reshapes borderline input can admit values the caller never intended, quietly enlarging the effective domain; the safe stance is to validate strictly and cross the trust boundary only with values that provably belong.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:16992217bf75 · see in the full table