Injection & Interpretation Risks

About

Injection risks occur when untrusted input is interpreted or executed as code or commands, often leading to arbitrary behavior. From a code-quality perspective, these are structural weaknesses in how code handles input and executes logic, not just runtime bugs.

Injection arises when:

• Code constructs executable statements (SQL, OS commands, XPath, expressions) dynamically

• Input is concatenated, interpolated, or otherwise embedded

• Input validation or encoding is missing or incomplete

Even if the system functions correctly under expected input, malicious input can change program behavior, violating integrity, confidentiality, or availability.

Common Injection Types

1. SQL Injection

   • Unsanitized user input in database queries

   • Risk: data leakage, unauthorized modification

2. Command Injection

   • Input passed to system commands or scripts

   • Risk: full system compromise

3. XPath / Expression Injection

   • Input used in XML queries, scripting, or template engines

   • Risk: bypassing access control or data exposure

4. Deserialization / Object Injection

   • Arbitrary input deserialized into objects

   • Risk: code execution or state manipulation

5. Template Injection

   • Input rendered in dynamic templates

   • Risk: execution of arbitrary code in templates or views

Why Injection Is a Code-Quality Issue ?

Injection risks are structural mistakes in code logic:

• Mixing data and instructions violates separation of concerns

• Defensive assumptions about inputs are implicit, not enforced

• Code readability and maintainability suffer when input handling is ad-hoc

High-quality code enforces clear boundaries between input data and execution logic.

Prevention Principles

1. Use Safe APIs / Parameterization

   • e.g., prepared statements for SQL

   • avoids direct concatenation

2. Validate and Encode Input

   • Ensure input conforms to expected type, format, and context

   • Encode input before interpreting it

3. Minimal Privilege Execution

   • Limit the effect of any injected input

   • Reduce blast radius

4. Centralize Handling of External Input

   • Easier to audit, maintain, and test

Conceptual Insight

Injection risks illustrate a latent disconnect between code assumptions and reality:

• Code assumes input is safe, but input can be adversarial

• Even “working” code may silently allow dangerous behaviors

• Prevention requires structural discipline, not just runtime checks