Détail du CWE-110

CWE-110

Struts: Validator Without Form Field
Draft
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
2023-06-29
00h00 +00:00
Notifications pour un CWE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CWE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Nom: Struts: Validator Without Form Field

Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.

Description du CWE

It is easy for developers to forget to update validation logic when they make changes to an ActionForm class. One indication that validation logic is not being properly maintained is inconsistencies between the action form and the validation form.

Although J2EE applications are not generally susceptible to memory corruption attacks, if a J2EE application interfaces with native code that does not perform array bounds checking, an attacker may be able to use an input validation mistake in the J2EE application to launch a buffer overflow attack.

Informations générales

Modes d'introduction

Implementation
Operation

Plateformes applicables

Langue

Name: Java (Undetermined)

Conséquences courantes

Portée Impact Probabilité
OtherOther

Note: It is critically important that validation logic be maintained and kept in sync with the rest of the application. Unchecked input is the root cause of some of today's worst and most common software security problems. Cross-site scripting, SQL injection, and process control vulnerabilities all stem from incomplete or absent input validation.

Méthodes de détection

Automated Static Analysis

To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the XML configuration files.
Efficacité : Moderate

Manual Static Analysis

To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the XML configuration files.
Efficacité : Moderate

Notes de cartographie des vulnérabilités

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

Références

REF-6

Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors
Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess, Gary McGraw.
https://samate.nist.gov/SSATTM_Content/papers/Seven%20Pernicious%20Kingdoms%20-%20Taxonomy%20of%20Sw%20Security%20Errors%20-%20Tsipenyuk%20-%20Chess%20-%20McGraw.pdf

Soumission

Nom Organisation Date Date de publication Version
7 Pernicious Kingdoms 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

Modifications

Nom Organisation Date Commentaire
Eric Dalci Cigital 2008-07-01 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-09-08 +00:00 updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
CWE Content Team MITRE 2008-11-24 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences, Description, Other_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2009-07-27 +00:00 updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team MITRE 2011-06-01 +00:00 updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team MITRE 2012-05-11 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2013-02-21 +00:00 updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-06-23 +00:00 updated Description, Other_Notes
CWE Content Team MITRE 2014-07-30 +00:00 updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
CWE Content Team MITRE 2017-11-08 +00:00 updated Causal_Nature, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2020-02-24 +00:00 updated References, Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2022-04-28 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-04-27 +00:00 updated Relationships
CWE Content Team MITRE 2023-06-29 +00:00 updated Mapping_Notes