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 2: Action Field Without Validator
Abstract
An Action Field was found without a corresponding validation definition.
Explanation
One or more Action Fields do not have a corresponding validation definition. Each field should have an explicit validation routine referenced in ActionClass-validation.xml.
It is easy for developers to forget to update validation logic when they remove or rename action form mappings. One indication that validation logic is not being properly maintained is the lack of a validator definition.
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.
It is easy for developers to forget to update validation logic when they remove or rename action form mappings. One indication that validation logic is not being properly maintained is the lack of a validator definition.
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 Struts2 Validation Framework The Apache Foundation
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 101
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-002754
[5] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 SI
[6] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[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 API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A1 Unvalidated Input
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.1
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.1
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.1
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.1
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[25] 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
[26] 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
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3510 CAT I
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3510 CAT I
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3510 CAT I
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3510 CAT I
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3510 CAT I
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3510 CAT I
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3510 CAT I
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[47] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[48] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002530 CAT II, APSC-DV-002560 CAT I
[49] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.java.struts2_action_field_without_validator