CWE

Common Weakness Enumeration

A community-developed list of SW & HW weaknesses that can become vulnerabilities
New to CWE? click here!
CWE Most Important Hardware Weaknesses
CWE Top 25 Most Dangerous Weaknesses
Home > CWE List > CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection') (4.18)
ID
CWE Glossary Definition

CWE-88: Improper Neutralization of Argument Delimiters in a Command ('Argument Injection')

Weakness ID: 88
Vulnerability Mapping: ALLOWED This CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities
Abstraction: Base Base - a weakness that is still mostly independent of a resource or technology, but with sufficient details to provide specific methods for detection and prevention. Base level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 2 or 3 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, technology, language, and resource.
View customized information:
For users who are interested in more notional aspects of a weakness. Example: educators, technical writers, and project/program managers. For users who are concerned with the practical application and details about the nature of a weakness and how to prevent it from happening. Example: tool developers, security researchers, pen-testers, incident response analysts. For users who are mapping an issue to CWE/CAPEC IDs, i.e., finding the most appropriate CWE for a specific issue (e.g., a CVE record). Example: tool developers, security researchers. For users who wish to see all available information for the CWE/CAPEC entry. For users who want to customize what details are displayed.
×

Edit Custom Filter


Description
The product constructs a string for a command to be executed by a separate component in another control sphere, but it does not properly delimit the intended arguments, options, or switches within that command string.
Extended Description

When creating commands using interpolation into a string, developers may assume that only the arguments/options that they specify will be processed. This assumption may be even stronger when the programmer has encoded the command in a way that prevents separate commands from being provided maliciously, e.g. in the case of shell metacharacters. When constructing the command, the developer may use whitespace or other delimiters that are required to separate arguments when the command. However, if an attacker can provide an untrusted input that contains argument-separating delimiters, then the resulting command will have more arguments than intended by the developer. The attacker may then be able to change the behavior of the command. Depending on the functionality supported by the extraneous arguments, this may have security-relevant consequences.

Common Consequences
Section HelpThis table specifies different individual consequences associated with the weakness. The Scope identifies the application security area that is violated, while the Impact describes the negative technical impact that arises if an adversary succeeds in exploiting this weakness. The Likelihood provides information about how likely the specific consequence is expected to be seen relative to the other consequences in the list. For example, there may be high likelihood that a weakness will be exploited to achieve a certain impact, but a low likelihood that it will be exploited to achieve a different impact.
Impact Details

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands; Alter Execution Logic; Read Application Data; Modify Application Data

Scope: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Other

An attacker could include arguments that allow unintended commands or code to be executed, allow sensitive data to be read or modified or could cause other unintended behavior.
Potential Mitigations
Phase(s) Mitigation

Implementation

Strategy: Parameterization

Where possible, avoid building a single string that contains the command and its arguments. Some languages or frameworks have functions that support specifying independent arguments, e.g. as an array, which is used to automatically perform the appropriate quoting or escaping while building the command. For example, in PHP, escapeshellarg() can be used to escape a single argument to system(), or exec() can be called with an array of arguments. In C, code can often be refactored from using system() - which accepts a single string - to using exec(), which requires separate function arguments for each parameter.

Effectiveness: High

Architecture and Design

Strategy: Input Validation

Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your product: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, request headers as well as content, URL components, e-mail, files, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Perform input validation at well-defined interfaces.

Implementation

Strategy: Input Validation

Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.

When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."

Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.

Implementation
Directly convert your input type into the expected data type, such as using a conversion function that translates a string into a number. After converting to the expected data type, ensure that the input's values fall within the expected range of allowable values and that multi-field consistencies are maintained.

Implementation

Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180, CWE-181). Make sure that your application does not inadvertently decode the same input twice (CWE-174). Such errors could be used to bypass allowlist schemes by introducing dangerous inputs after they have been checked. Use libraries such as the OWASP ESAPI Canonicalization control.

Consider performing repeated canonicalization until your input does not change any more. This will avoid double-decoding and similar scenarios, but it might inadvertently modify inputs that are allowed to contain properly-encoded dangerous content.

Implementation
When exchanging data between components, ensure that both components are using the same character encoding. Ensure that the proper encoding is applied at each interface. Explicitly set the encoding you are using whenever the protocol allows you to do so.

Implementation
When your application combines data from multiple sources, perform the validation after the sources have been combined. The individual data elements may pass the validation step but violate the intended restrictions after they have been combined.

Testing
Use automated static analysis tools that target this type of weakness. Many modern techniques use data flow analysis to minimize the number of false positives. This is not a perfect solution, since 100% accuracy and coverage are not feasible.

Testing
Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
Relationships
Section Help This table shows the weaknesses and high level categories that are related to this weakness. These relationships are defined as ChildOf, ParentOf, MemberOf and give insight to similar items that may exist at higher and lower levels of abstraction. In addition, relationships such as PeerOf and CanAlsoBe are defined to show similar weaknesses that the user may want to explore.
Relevant to the view "Research Concepts" (View-1000)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Relevant to the view "Software Development" (View-699)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 137 Data Neutralization Issues
Relevant to the view "Weaknesses for Simplified Mapping of Published Vulnerabilities" (View-1003)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 74 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements in Output Used by a Downstream Component ('Injection')
Relevant to the view "Architectural Concepts" (View-1008)
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf Category Category - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1019 Validate Inputs
Relevant to the view "CISQ Quality Measures (2020)" (View-1305)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Relevant to the view "CISQ Data Protection Measures" (View-1340)
Nature Type ID Name
ChildOf Class Class - a weakness that is described in a very abstract fashion, typically independent of any specific language or technology. More specific than a Pillar Weakness, but more general than a Base Weakness. Class level weaknesses typically describe issues in terms of 1 or 2 of the following dimensions: behavior, property, and resource. 77 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
Modes Of Introduction
Section HelpThe different Modes of Introduction provide information about how and when this weakness may be introduced. The Phase identifies a point in the life cycle at which introduction may occur, while the Note provides a typical scenario related to introduction during the given phase.
Phase Note
Implementation REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Applicable Platforms
Section HelpThis listing shows possible areas for which the given weakness could appear. These may be for specific named Languages, Operating Systems, Architectures, Paradigms, Technologies, or a class of such platforms. The platform is listed along with how frequently the given weakness appears for that instance.
Languages

Class: Not Language-Specific (Undetermined Prevalence)

PHP (Often Prevalent)

Demonstrative Examples

Example 1


Consider the following program. It intends to perform an "ls -l" on an input filename. The validate_name() subroutine performs validation on the input to make sure that only alphanumeric and "-" characters are allowed, which avoids path traversal (CWE-22) and OS command injection (CWE-78) weaknesses. Only filenames like "abc" or "d-e-f" are intended to be allowed.

(bad code)
Example Language: Perl
my $arg = GetArgument("filename");
do_listing($arg);

sub do_listing {
my($fname) = @_;
if (! validate_name($fname)) {
print "Error: name is not well-formed!\n";
return;
}
# build command
my $cmd = "/bin/ls -l $fname";
system($cmd);
}

sub validate_name {
my($name) = @_;
if ($name =~ /^[\w\-]+$/) {
return(1);
}
else {
return(0);
}
}

However, validate_name() allows filenames that begin with a "-". An adversary could supply a filename like "-aR", producing the "ls -l -aR" command (CWE-88), thereby getting a full recursive listing of the entire directory and all of its sub-directories.

There are a couple possible mitigations for this weakness. One would be to refactor the code to avoid using system() altogether, instead relying on internal functions.

Another option could be to add a "--" argument to the ls command, such as "ls -l --", so that any remaining arguments are treated as filenames, causing any leading "-" to be treated as part of a filename instead of another option.

Another fix might be to change the regular expression used in validate_name to force the first character of the filename to be a letter or number, such as:

(good code)
Example Language: Perl
if ($name =~ /^\w[\w\-]+$/) ...


Example 2


CVE-2016-10033 / [REF-1249] provides a useful real-world example of this weakness within PHPMailer.

The program calls PHP's mail() function to compose and send mail. The fifth argument to mail() is a set of parameters. The program intends to provide a "-fSENDER" parameter, where SENDER is expected to be a well-formed email address. The program has already validated the e-mail address before invoking mail(), but there is a lot of flexibility in what constitutes a well-formed email address, including whitespace. With some additional allowed characters to perform some escaping, the adversary can specify an additional "-o" argument (listing an output file) and a "-X" argument (giving a program to execute). Additional details for this kind of exploit are in [REF-1250].



Selected Observed Examples

Note: this is a curated list of examples for users to understand the variety of ways in which this weakness can be introduced. It is not a complete list of all CVEs that are related to this CWE entry.

Reference Description
Python-based dependency management tool avoids OS command injection when generating Git commands but allows injection of optional arguments with input beginning with a dash (CWE-88), potentially allowing for code execution.
Canonical Example - "-froot" argument is passed on to another program, where the "-f" causes execution as user "root"
Web browser executes Telnet sessions using command line arguments that are specified by the web site, which could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands.
Web browser allows remote attackers to execute commands by spawning Telnet with a log file option on the command line and writing arbitrary code into an executable file which is later executed.
Argument injection vulnerability in the mail function for PHP may allow attackers to bypass safe mode restrictions and modify command line arguments to the MTA (e.g. sendmail) possibly executing commands.
Help and Support center in windows does not properly validate HCP URLs, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via quotation marks in an "hcp://" URL.
Mail client does not sufficiently filter parameters of mailto: URLs when using them as arguments to mail executable, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary programs.
Web browser doesn't filter "-" when invoking various commands, allowing command-line switches to be specified.
Mail client allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a URI that uses a UNC network share pathname to provide an alternate configuration file.
SSH URI handler for web browser allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or conduct port forwarding via the a command line option.
Web browser doesn't filter "-" when invoking various commands, allowing command-line switches to be specified.
Argument injection vulnerability in TellMe 1.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to modify command line arguments for the Whois program and obtain sensitive information via "--" style options in the q_Host parameter.
Beagle before 0.2.5 can produce certain insecure command lines to launch external helper applications while indexing, which allows attackers to execute arbitrary commands. NOTE: it is not immediately clear whether this issue involves argument injection, shell metacharacters, or other issues.
Argument injection vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP2 allows user-assisted remote attackers to modify command line arguments to an invoked mail client via " (double quote) characters in a mailto: scheme handler, as demonstrated by launching Microsoft Outlook with an arbitrary filename as an attachment. NOTE: it is not clear whether this issue is implementation-specific or a problem in the Microsoft API.
Argument injection vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox 1.0.6 allows user-assisted remote attackers to modify command line arguments to an invoked mail client via " (double quote) characters in a mailto: scheme handler, as demonstrated by launching Microsoft Outlook with an arbitrary filename as an attachment. NOTE: it is not clear whether this issue is implementation-specific or a problem in the Microsoft API.
Argument injection vulnerability in Avant Browser 10.1 Build 17 allows user-assisted remote attackers to modify command line arguments to an invoked mail client via " (double quote) characters in a mailto: scheme handler, as demonstrated by launching Microsoft Outlook with an arbitrary filename as an attachment. NOTE: it is not clear whether this issue is implementation-specific or a problem in the Microsoft API.
Argument injection vulnerability in the URI handler in Skype 2.0.*.104 and 2.5.*.0 through 2.5.*.78 for Windows allows remote authorized attackers to download arbitrary files via a URL that contains certain command-line switches.
Argument injection vulnerability in WinSCP 3.8.1 build 328 allows remote attackers to upload or download arbitrary files via encoded spaces and double-quote characters in a scp or sftp URI.
Argument injection vulnerability in the Windows Object Packager (packager.exe) in Microsoft Windows XP SP1 and SP2 and Server 2003 SP1 and earlier allows remote user-assisted attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted file with a "/" (slash) character in the filename of the Command Line property, followed by a valid file extension, which causes the command before the slash to be executed, aka "Object Packager Dialogue Spoofing Vulnerability."
Argument injection vulnerability in HyperAccess 8.4 allows user-assisted remote attackers to execute arbitrary vbscript and commands via the /r option in a telnet:// URI, which is configured to use hawin32.exe.
Argument injection vulnerability in the telnet daemon (in.telnetd) in Solaris 10 and 11 (SunOS 5.10 and 5.11) misinterprets certain client "-f" sequences as valid requests for the login program to skip authentication, which allows remote attackers to log into certain accounts, as demonstrated by the bin account.
Language interpreter's mail function accepts another argument that is concatenated to a string used in a dangerous popen() call. Since there is no neutralization of this argument, both OS Command Injection (CWE-78) and Argument Injection (CWE-88) are possible.
Argument injection allows execution of arbitrary commands by injecting a "-exec" option, which is executed by the command.
Argument injection in mail-processing function allows writing unxpected files and executing programs using tecnically-valid email addresses that insert "-o" and "-X" switches.
Weakness Ordinalities
Ordinality Description
Primary
(where the weakness exists independent of other weaknesses)
Detection Methods
Method Details

Automated Static Analysis
Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.)

Effectiveness: High
Functional Areas
  • Program Invocation
Affected Resources
  • System Process
Memberships
Section HelpThis MemberOf Relationships table shows additional CWE Categories and Views that reference this weakness as a member. This information is often useful in understanding where a weakness fits within the context of external information sources.
Nature Type ID Name
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 741 CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 8 - Characters and Strings (STR)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 744 CERT C Secure Coding Standard (2008) Chapter 11 - Environment (ENV)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 810 OWASP Top Ten 2010 Category A1 - Injection
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 875 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 07 - Characters and Strings (STR)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 878 CERT C++ Secure Coding Section 10 - Environment (ENV)
MemberOf ViewView - a subset of CWE entries that provides a way of examining CWE content. The two main view structures are Slices (flat lists) and Graphs (containing relationships between entries). 884 CWE Cross-section
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 929 OWASP Top Ten 2013 Category A1 - Injection
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 990 SFP Secondary Cluster: Tainted Input to Command
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1027 OWASP Top Ten 2017 Category A1 - Injection
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1165 SEI CERT C Coding Standard - Guidelines 10. Environment (ENV)
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1347 OWASP Top Ten 2021 Category A03:2021 - Injection
MemberOf CategoryCategory - a CWE entry that contains a set of other entries that share a common characteristic. 1409 Comprehensive Categorization: Injection
Vulnerability Mapping Notes
Usage ALLOWED
(this CWE ID may be used to map to real-world vulnerabilities)
Reason Acceptable-Use

Rationale

This CWE entry is at the Base level of abstraction, which is a preferred level of abstraction for mapping to the root causes of vulnerabilities.

Comments

Carefully read both the name and description to ensure that this mapping is an appropriate fit. Do not try to 'force' a mapping to a lower-level Base/Variant simply to comply with this preferred level of abstraction.
Notes

Relationship

At one layer of abstraction, this can overlap other weaknesses that have whitespace problems, e.g. injection of javascript into attributes of HTML tags.
Taxonomy Mappings
Mapped Taxonomy Name Node ID Fit Mapped Node Name
PLOVER Argument Injection or Modification
CERT C Secure Coding ENV03-C Sanitize the environment when invoking external programs
CERT C Secure Coding ENV33-C Imprecise Do not call system()
CERT C Secure Coding STR02-C Sanitize data passed to complex subsystems
WASC 30 Mail Command Injection
References
[REF-859] Steven Christey. "Argument injection issues".
<https://seclists.org/bugtraq/2007/Feb/234ed>. (URL validated: 2023年04月07日)
[REF-62] Mark Dowd, John McDonald and Justin Schuh. "The Art of Software Security Assessment". Chapter 10, "The Argument Array", Page 567. 1st Edition. Addison Wesley. 2006.
[REF-1030] Eldar Marcussen. "Security issues with using PHP's escapeshellarg". 2013年11月13日.
<https://baesystemsai.blogspot.com/2013/11/security-issues-with-using-phps.html>.
[REF-1249] Dawid Golunski. "PHPMailer < 5.2.18 Remote Code Execution [CVE-2016-10033]". 2016年12月25日.
<https://legalhackers.com/advisories/PHPMailer-Exploit-Remote-Code-Exec-CVE-2016-10033-Vuln.html>.
[REF-1250] Dawid Golunski. "Pwning PHP mail() function For Fun And RCE". 2017年05月03日.
<https://exploitbox.io/paper/Pwning-PHP-Mail-Function-For-Fun-And-RCE.html>.
Content History
Submissions
Submission Date Submitter Organization
2006年07月19日
(CWE Draft 3, 2006年07月19日) 		PLOVER
Contributions
Contribution Date Contributor Organization
2021年05月28日 Anonymous External Contributor
Identified inappropriate demonstrative example, suggested new observed example, applicable language.
Modifications
Modification Date Modifier Organization
2025年09月09日
(CWE 4.18, 2025年09月09日) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Functional_Areas
2024年07月16日
(CWE 4.15, 2024年07月16日) 		CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2023年06月29日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Mapping_Notes
2023年04月27日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Detection_Factors, References, Relationships, Time_of_Introduction
2023年01月31日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Potential_Mitigations
2022年10月13日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2022年04月28日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References
2021年10月28日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020年12月10日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020年08月20日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2020年06月25日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2020年02月24日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
2019年09月23日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Name, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations
2019年09月19日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Description, Name, References, Relationships
2019年06月20日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2019年01月03日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2018年03月27日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2017年11月08日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Applicable_Platforms, Causal_Nature, Modes_of_Introduction, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2015年12月07日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Relationships
2014年07月30日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2014年06月23日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2012年10月30日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations
2012年05月11日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Observed_Examples, References, Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
2011年09月13日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2011年06月01日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Common_Consequences
2010年09月27日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships
2010年06月21日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships
2010年04月05日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Related_Attack_Patterns
2010年02月16日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Potential_Mitigations, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2009年10月29日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples
2009年07月27日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes
2008年11月24日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Observed_Examples, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
2008年09月08日 CWE Content Team MITRE
updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
2008年07月01日 Eric Dalci Cigital
updated Time_of_Introduction
Previous Entry Names
Change Date Previous Entry Name
2019年09月19日 Argument Injection or Modification
2019年09月23日 Improper Delimitation of Arguments in a Command ('Argument Injection')
More information is available — Please edit the custom filter or select a different filter.
Page Last Updated: September 09, 2025

Use of the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE™) and the associated references from this website are subject to the Terms of Use. CWE is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and managed by the Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute (HSSEDI) which is operated by The MITRE Corporation (MITRE). Copyright © 2006–2025, The MITRE Corporation. CWE, CWSS, CWRAF, and the CWE logo are trademarks of The MITRE Corporation.

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /