Nama: Struts: Form Field Without Validator

The product has a form field that is not validated by a corresponding validation form, which can introduce other weaknesses related to insufficient input validation.

Informasi Umum

Mode Pengenalan

Implementation : Some products use the same ActionForm for more than one purpose. In situations like this, some fields may go unused under some action mappings.

Platform yang Berlaku

Bahasa

Nama: Java (Undetermined)

Konsekuensi Umum

Cakupan	Dampak	Kemungkinan
Integrity	Unexpected State Catatan: Omitting validation for even a single input field may give attackers the leeway they need to compromise the product. 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.
Integrity	Bypass Protection Mechanism Catatan: If unused fields are not validated, shared business logic in an action may allow attackers to bypass the validation checks that are performed for other uses of the form.

Mitigasi yang Memungkinkan

Phases : Implementation
Validate all form fields. If a field is unused, it is still important to constrain it so that it is empty or undefined.

Metode Deteksi

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.)

Catatan Pemetaan Kerentanan

Justifikasi : 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.
Komentar : 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.

Referensi

REF-6

Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security Errors
Katrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess, Gary McGraw.
https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/SevenPerniciousKingdoms.pdf

Pengajuan

Nama	Organisasi	Tanggal	Tanggal rilis	Version
7 Pernicious Kingdoms		2006-07-19 +00:00	2006-07-19 +00:00	Draft 3

Modifikasi

Nama	Organisasi	Tanggal	Komentar
Eric Dalci	Cigital	2008-07-01 +00:00	updated Time_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2008-09-08 +00:00	updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2010-06-21 +00:00	updated Demonstrative_Examples
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2011-06-01 +00:00	updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2011-06-27 +00:00	updated Common_Consequences
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2012-05-11 +00:00	updated Relationships
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2012-10-30 +00:00	updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2014-06-23 +00:00	updated Common_Consequences, Description, Modes_of_Introduction, 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, Relationships
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2019-01-03 +00:00	updated Relationships
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2020-02-24 +00:00	updated References, Relationships
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2021-07-20 +00:00	updated Potential_Mitigations
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2023-01-31 +00:00	updated Description, Modes_of_Introduction
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2023-04-27 +00:00	updated Relationships
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2023-06-29 +00:00	updated Mapping_Notes
CWE Content Team	MITRE	2026-10-28 +00:00	updated Common_Consequences, Description, Detection_Factors, References

Detail CWE-105

CWE-105