Kingdom: Input Validation and Representation
Input validation and representation problems ares caused by metacharacters, alternate encodings and numeric representations. Security problems result from trusting input. The issues include: "Buffer Overflows," "Cross-Site Scripting" attacks, "SQL Injection," and many others.
Struts: Validator Without Form Field
Abstract
Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.
Explanation
It is easy for developers to forget to update validation logic when they make changes to an
Example 1.a: An action form with two fields.
Example 1.a shows an action form that has two fields,
Example 1.b: A validation form with a third field.
Example 1.b lists a validation form for the action form. The validation form lists a third field:
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. 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.
ActionForm
class. One indication that validation logic is not being properly maintained is inconsistencies between the action form and the validation form.Example 1.a: An action form with two fields.
public class DateRangeForm extends ValidatorForm {
String startDate, endDate;
public void setStartDate(String startDate) {
this.startDate = startDate;
}
public void setEndDate(String endDate) {
this.endDate = endDate;
}
}
Example 1.a shows an action form that has two fields,
startDate
and endDate
.Example 1.b: A validation form with a third field.
<form name="DateRangeForm">
<field property="startDate" depends="date">
<arg0 key="start.date"/>
</field>
<field property="endDate" depends="date">
<arg0 key="end.date"/>
</field>
<field property="scale" depends="integer">
<arg0 key="range.scale"/>
</field>
</form>
Example 1.b lists a validation form for the action form. The validation form lists a third field:
scale
. The presence of the third field suggests that DateRangeForm
was modified without taking validation into account.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. 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.
References
[1] T. Husted et al. Struts in Action: Building Web Applications with the Leading Java Framework Manning Publications
[2] The Struts project The Apache Foundation
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 110
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[6] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[7] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SI-10 Information Input Validation (P1)
[8] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SI-10 Information Input Validation
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective B.3.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective B.3.1.1 - Terminal Software Attack Mitigation, Control Objective C.3.2 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.struts_validator_without_form_field