CWE-105 詳細

CWE-105

Struts: Form Field Without Validator
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
Draft
2026-10-28
00h00 +00:00
特定のCWEの通知
特定のCWEの変更情報をいち早くお届けします。
通知を管理する

名前: 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.

一般情報

導入モード

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.

適用可能なプラットフォーム

言語

名前: Java (Undetermined)

一般的な結果

スコープ 影響 可能性
IntegrityUnexpected State

注記: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.
IntegrityBypass Protection Mechanism

注記: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.

潜在的な緩和策

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.

検出方法

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.)

脆弱性マッピングノート

理由 : 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.
コメント : 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.

参考文献

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

登録情報

名前 組織 日付 リリース日 Version
7 Pernicious Kingdoms 2006-07-19 +00:00 2006-07-19 +00:00 Draft 3

変更履歴

名前 組織 日付 コメント
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