CWE-105
Struts: Form Field Without Validator
2006-07-19
00h00 +00:00
00h00 +00:00
Thông báo cho một CWE
Luôn được thông báo về mọi thay đổi đối với một CWE cụ thể.
Tên: 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.
Thông tin chung
Các cách xuất hiện
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.Nền tảng áp dụng
Ngôn ngữ
Tên: Java (Undetermined)Hậu quả phổ biến
| Phạm vi | Tác động | Khả năng xảy ra |
|---|---|---|
| Integrity | Unexpected State Ghi chú: 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 Ghi chú: 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. |
Các biện pháp giảm thiểu tiềm năng
Phases : ImplementationValidate all form fields. If a field is unused, it is still important to constrain it so that it is empty or undefined.
Phương pháp phát hiện
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.)Ghi chú ánh xạ lỗ hổng
Lý do : 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.Bình luận : 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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
REF-6
Seven Pernicious Kingdoms: A Taxonomy of Software Security ErrorsKatrina Tsipenyuk, Brian Chess, Gary McGraw.
https://cwe.mitre.org/documents/sources/SevenPerniciousKingdoms.pdf
Gửi
| Tên | Tổ chức | Ngày | Ngày phát hành | Version |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Pernicious Kingdoms | Draft 3 |
Sửa đổi
| Tên | Tổ chức | Ngày | Bình luận |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eric Dalci | Cigital | updated Time_of_Introduction | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships, Other_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings, Weakness_Ordinalities | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Demonstrative_Examples | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Potential_Mitigations | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences, Description, Modes_of_Introduction, Other_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Causal_Nature, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated References, Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Potential_Mitigations | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Description, Modes_of_Introduction | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Relationships | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Mapping_Notes | |
| CWE Content Team | MITRE | updated Common_Consequences, Description, Detection_Factors, References |
