CWE-110: Struts: Validator Without Form Field | Glexia
CWE-110 (Struts: Validator Without Form Field) weakness overview with consequences, detection methods, mitigations, related CVEs and MITRE ATT&CK context.
Glexia's Take · Automated analysis
CWE-110: Struts: Validator Without Form Field
Struts: Validator Without Form Field represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.
Executive Impact
- Other: Other: 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.
Developer Pattern
CWE-110 is the kind of defect developers can usually prevent with explicit validation, safer framework defaults, and tests that exercise hostile input or unsafe state transitions.
Automation confidence
high confidence from CWE-110, 4.20.
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Official CWE Definition
CWE-110: 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Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.
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.
Developer And Remediation Guidance
How teams prevent and detect this weakness
Causes
- This example shows an inconsistency between an action form and a validation form. with a third field. This first block of code shows an action form that has two fields, startDate and endDate. This second block of related code shows a validation form with a third field: scale. The presence of the third field suggests that DateRangeForm was modified without taking validation into account.
Remediation
- Use safe APIs
- Centralize the control
- Add regression tests
- Review logs and telemetry for attempted abuse
Detection
- Automated Static Analysis: To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the XML configuration files.
- Manual Static Analysis: To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the XML configuration files.
Mappings
Related CVEs, CWEs, and ATT&CK context
ATT&CK Relevance
ATT&CK relevance is shown only when reviewed or responsibly inferred.