1576 items found
Weaknesses
Abstract
Multiple servlet mappings for the same URL pattern exist. Duplicate servlet mappings often indicate left over debug code or a typographical error.
Explanation
Duplicate servlet mappings serve no purpose since only the last entry will be applied when the same URL pattern is used in multiple servlet mappings.

Example 1: In the following example, the URL pattern /servletA/* is used in two different servlet mappings.

<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>ServletA</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/servletA/*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>
<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>ServletB</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/servletA/*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>
References
[1] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_duplicate_servlet_mapping
Abstract
A form-bean without a type attribute will not be mapped correctly.
Explanation
Struts uses form-bean entries to map HTML forms to actions. If a form-bean does not have a type, it cannot be mapped to an action.
Example 1: The following form-bean has an empty type attribute.

<form-beans>
<form-bean name="loginForm" type="">
<form-property name="name" type="java.lang.String" />
<form-property name="password" type="java.lang.String" />
</form-bean>
</form-beans>
References
[1] Apache Struts 1.3 Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_missing_form_bean_type
Abstract
It is an error to define a form-property without a type type attribute.
Explanation
Struts requires <form-property> tags to include a type attribute. Struts will throw an exception when processing a form that defines a form-property with no type.

Example 1: The following configuration omits a type for the name property.

<form-bean name="loginForm" type="org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorForm">
<form-property name="name" />
<form-property name="password" type="java.lang.String" />
</form-bean>
References
[1] Apache Struts 1.3 Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_missing_form_property_type
Abstract
Invalid path entries prevent Struts from locating the correct resource to service requests.
Explanation
Struts uses the path attribute to locate the resource necessary to handle a request. Since the path is a module-relative location, it is an error if it does not begin with a "/" character.

Example 1: The following configuration contains an empty path.

<global-exceptions>
<exception key="global.error.invalidLogin" path="" scope="request" type="InvalidLoginException" />
</global-exceptions>
Example 2: The following configuration uses a path that does not start with a "/" character.

<global-forwards>
<forward name="login" path="Login.jsp" />
</global-forwards>
References
[1] Apache Struts Specification
[2] Chuck Caveness, Brian Keeton
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_invalid_path
Abstract
A <forward> tag with a missing path attribute often indicates leftover debug code or a typographical error.
Explanation
A <forward> tag must have name and path attributes. It is an error to omit a path or to specify a blank path. Furthermore, all paths must start with the "/" character.

Example 1: The following <forward> tag has a missing path attribute.

<forward name="success" />
References
[1] Apache Struts 1.3 Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_missing_forward_path
Abstract
Configuring PHP to invoke arbitrary programs can allow attackers to execute malicious commands.
Explanation
When safe_mode is enabled, the safe_mode_exec_dir option restricts PHP to executing commands from only the specified directories. Although the absence of a safe_mode_exec_dir entry does not represent a security vulnerability itself, this added leniency can be exploited by attackers in conjunction with other vulnerabilities to make exploits more dangerous.
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 553
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 12.5.1 File Download Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M5 Poor Authorization and Authentication
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[23] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.php.php_misconfiguration_safe_mode_exec_dir
Abstract
Disabling the view state message authentication check (MAC) can allow attackers to modify the view state.
Explanation
In ASP.NET, the view state is a mechanism to persist state in web forms across postbacks. Data stored in the view state is not trustworthy because there is no mechanism for preventing replay attacks. Trusting the view state is particularly dangerous when the view state message authentication check is disabled. Disabling this check allows attackers to make arbitrary changes to the data stored in the view state and can open the door for attacks against code that trusts the view state. Attackers might use this kind of error to defeat authentication checks or alter item pricing.
Example 1: The following code disables view state message authentication checks.

Page.EnableViewStateMac = false;
References
[1] Swapneil Kumar Dash Deep Dive into .NET ViewState deserialization and its exploitation
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 353
[3] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[4] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Access Violation
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 3.5.3 Token-based Session Management (L2 L3), 10.3.2 Deployed Application Integrity Controls (L1 L2 L3)
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M8 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 2.2.3
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 2.2.3
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 2.2.3
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 2.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 2.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 2.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 2.2.4
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 2.2.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 2.2.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 2.2 - Secure Defaults
[26] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
[27] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Insufficient Authentication
desc.semantic.dotnet.asp_net_misconfiguration_viewstatemac_disabled
Abstract
An <exception> tag that does not contain a type attribute will not be used.
Explanation
The <exception> tag requires that an exception type be defined. A missing or empty type attribute is indicative of either a superfluous exception handler or an accidental omission. If a developer intended to handle an exception, but forgot to define the exception type, then the application might leak sensitive information about the system.
Example 1: The following configuration omits the type from the <exception> tag.

<global-exceptions>
<exception
key="error.key"
handler="com.mybank.ExceptionHandler"/>
</global-exceptions>
References
[1] Apache Struts Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 248
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A7 Improper Error Handling
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2007 A6 Information Leakage and Improper Error Handling
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.7
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.2 Requirement 6.3.1.2, Requirement 6.5.6
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 2.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.5
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.5
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.5
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP3120 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP3120 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP3120 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP3120 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP3120 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP3120 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP3120 CAT II
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_missing_exception_type
Abstract
It is an error to omit the input attribute for named Struts actions that can return validation errors..
Explanation
The struts specification requires an input attribute whenever a named action returns validation errors[2]. The input attribute specifies the page used to display error messages when validation errors occur.
Example 1: The following configuration defines a named validating action, but does not specify an input attribute.

<action-mappings>
<action path="/Login"
type="com.LoginAction"
name="LoginForm"
scope="request"
validate="true" />
</action-mappings>
References
[1] Apache Struts Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_missing_action_input
Abstract
Avoid running Secure Shell (SSH) service within docker containers.
Explanation
When a Secure Shell (SSH) service is running within a container, it is difficult to manage access policies, keys, passwords, and security upgrades.
References
[1] Docker exec command
[2] Why containers should not run SSH server
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M2 Inadequate Supply Chain Security
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.configuration.docker.dockerfile_misconfiguration_ssh_service
Abstract
A form-bean without a name attribute will not be used.
Explanation
Struts uses the form-bean name to map HTML forms to actions. If a form-bean does not have a name, it cannot be mapped to an action and indicates either a superfluous definition or an accidentally omitted bean.
Here is a proper form-bean example:
Example 1: The following form-bean has an empty name attribute.

<form-beans>
<form-bean name="" type="org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorForm">
<form-property name="name" type="java.lang.String" />
<form-property name="password" type="java.lang.String" />
</form-bean>
</form-beans>
References
[1] Apache Struts 1.3 Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_missing_form_bean_name
Abstract
Avoid using a Kubernetes default namespace.
Explanation
Kubernetes namespaces divide a cluster into manageable chunks. Namespaces provide a scope for names and facilitate the specification of various policies to a subsection of a cluster. By default, Kubernetes allocates a resource to a default namespace. Using a different namespace than the default reduces the impact of mistakes or malicious activities.

Example 1: The following configuration sets the namespace of a resource to default.

...
kind: ...
metadata:
...
namespace: default
spec:
...
References
[1] Namespaces The Kubernetes Authors
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 5.7.4
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 340
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001368, CCI-001414
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 AC-4 Information Flow Enforcement
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[14] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[15] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[16] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[17] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[18] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[19] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[20] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[21] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[22] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[23] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-000480 CAT II, APSC-DV-000490 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Predictable Resource Location (WASC-34)
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Predictable Resource Location
desc.structural.yaml.kubernetes_misconfiguration_default_namespace.base
Abstract
The Dockerfile sets a container to run with root user
Explanation
Dockerfile with USER instruction that is set to root, has an overly permissive privilege to make changes inside the container. It violates the principle of running images with least privileges. In usual cases, root permissions might be required to install packages and create folders. After the installation is done, it is good practice to add a user with restricted privileges.
References
[1] Docker USER instruction
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M2 Inadequate Supply Chain Security
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[31] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.configuration.docker.dockerfile_misconfiguration_privileged_container
Abstract
The Dockerfile opens container ports less than 1024.
Explanation
By default, Docker allows binding privileged ports to a container and if a port is not declared by the user then Docker maps the container port to one available in the 49153-65535 range. In many cases, certain ports need to be opened for running services and over time, the number of open ports may increase. Open ports increases the attack surface, particularly for services running with higher privileges. Make sure that you only open ports that are required for that specific service. When services do not require higher privileges, run them on port outside the privileged port range.
References
[1] Docker EXPOSE instruction
[2] Docker Networking User Guide
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2023 [6] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[10] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[11] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2024 M2 Inadequate Supply Chain Security
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[20] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[30] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[31] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[32] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.configuration.docker.dockerfile_misconfiguration_privileged_port
Abstract
A Kubernetes controller manager accepts external connections.
Explanation
The Kubernetes controller manager monitors the state of a cluster and if required, can make changes in any resources the cluster manages. By default, a controller manager accepts requests from external connections. From an external connection, an attacker can gain access to security sensitive but insufficiently protected APIs.

Example 1: The following configuration starts a Kubernetes controller manager without a bind address.

...
spec:
containers:
- command:
- kube-controller-manager
- --authentication-kubeconfig=/etc/kubernetes/controller-manager.conf
- --authorization-kubeconfig=/etc/kubernetes/controller-manager.conf
image: example.domain/kube-controller-manager:v1.9.7
imagePullPolicy: IfNotPresent
...
References
[1] Kubernetes controller manager The Kubernetes Authors
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 1.3.7
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[10] Standards Mapping - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Indirect Access to Sensitive Data
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[29] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[30] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.yaml.kubernetes_misconfiguration_unbound_controller_manager
Abstract
A Kubernetes Scheduler accepts external connections.
Explanation
Kubernetes Scheduler determines where Pods run. By default, a scheduler accepts requests from external connections. From an external connection, an attacker can access insufficiently protected and security sensitive APIs.

Example 1: The following configuration starts a Kubernetes Scheduler without a bind address.

...
spec:
containers:
- command:
- kube-scheduler
image: example.domain/kube-scheduler:v1.5.2
imagePullPolicy: IfNotPresent
...
References
[1] Kubernetes Scheduler The Kubernetes Authors
[2] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 1.4.2
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 20
[4] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2019 [3] CWE ID 020
[5] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2020 [3] CWE ID 020
[6] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2021 [4] CWE ID 020
[7] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2022 [4] CWE ID 020
[8] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [12] CWE ID 020
[9] Standards Mapping - FIPS200 CM
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Application Security Verification Standard 4.0 5.1.3 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3), 5.1.4 Input Validation Requirements (L1 L2 L3)
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[13] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[14] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[15] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[16] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[17] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[23] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[24] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[25] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[26] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[27] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[28] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Insecure Interaction - CWE ID 020
[29] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.structural.yaml.kubernetes_misconfiguration_unbound_scheduler
Abstract
Configuring PHP to register all environment, GET, POST, cookie, and server variables globally can lead to unexpected behavior and leaves the door open for attackers.
Explanation
When enabled, the register_globals option causes PHP to register all EGPCS (Environment, GET, POST, Cookie, and Server) variables globally, where they can be accessed in any scope in any PHP program. This option encourages programmers to write programs that are more-or-less unaware of the origin of values they rely on, which can lead to unexpected behavior in benign environments and leaves the door open to attackers in malicious environments. In recognition the dangerous security implications of register_globals, the option was disabled by default in PHP 4.2.0 and was deprecated and removed in PHP 6.

Example 1: The following code is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. The programmer assumes the value of $username originates from the server-controlled session, but an attacker may supply a malicious value for $username as a request parameter instead. With register_globals enabled, this code will include a malicious value submitted by an attacker in the dynamic HTML content it generates.


<?php
if (isset($username)) {
echo "Hello <b>$username</b>";
} else {
echo "Hello <b>Guest</b><br />";
echo "Would you like to login?";

}
?>
References
[1] M. Achour et al. PHP Manual
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 473
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A10 Insecure Configuration Management
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[11] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.10
[12] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.10
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.10
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[20] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Application Misconfiguration (WASC-15)
desc.php.php_misconfiguration_register_globals
Abstract
A configuration allows unlimited resource consumption.
Explanation
Billable computational resources include but are not limited to CPU usage, memory, persistent storage, and network connections. In the absence of resource usage limits, attackers could cause a denial of service that consumes all available resources or incur exorbitant bills.
References
[1] Standards Mapping - CIS Kubernetes Benchmark Recommendation 4.2.13
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 770
[3] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration Top 25 2024 [24] CWE ID 400
[4] Standards Mapping - DISA Control Correlation Identifier Version 2 CCI-001094
[5] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 4 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection (P1)
[6] Standards Mapping - NIST Special Publication 800-53 Revision 5 SC-5 Denial of Service Protection
[7] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API4 Unrestricted Resource Consumption, API8 Security Misconfiguration
[8] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2004 A9 Application Denial of Service
[9] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2010 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[10] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[11] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[12] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[13] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 1.1 Requirement 6.5.9
[14] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.0 Requirement 6.5.6
[15] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[16] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2 Requirement 6.5.6
[17] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 3.2.1 Requirement 6.5.6
[18] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0 Requirement 6.2.4
[19] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard Version 4.0.1 Requirement 6.2.4
[20] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[21] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[22] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection, Control Objective C.3.3 - Web Software Attack Mitigation
[23] Standards Mapping - SANS Top 25 2009 Risky Resource Management - CWE ID 404
[24] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.1 APP6080 CAT II
[25] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.4 APP6080 CAT II
[26] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.5 APP6080 CAT II
[27] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.6 APP6080 CAT II
[28] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.7 APP6080 CAT II
[29] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.9 APP6080 CAT II
[30] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 3.10 APP6080 CAT II
[31] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[32] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[33] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.4 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[34] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.5 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[35] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.6 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[36] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.7 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[37] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.8 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[38] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.9 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[39] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.10 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[40] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.11 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[41] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 4.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[42] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[43] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[44] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 5.3 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[45] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.1 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[46] Standards Mapping - Security Technical Implementation Guide Version 6.2 APSC-DV-002400 CAT II
[47] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium Version 2.00 Denial of Service (WASC-10)
[48] Standards Mapping - Web Application Security Consortium 24 + 2 Denial of Service
desc.structural.iac.misconfiguration_uncontrolled_resource_consumption.base
Abstract
Multiple URL patterns map to a single Servlet, which often indicates poor a architecture or a lack of standardization.
Explanation
Multiple URL patterns that map to a single Servlet could be a sign that the Servlet performs too many functions.

Example 1: The following example maps five URL patterns to a single Servlet.

<servlet>
<servlet-class>com.class.MyServlet</servlet-class>
<load-on-startup>1</load-on-startup>
</servlet>

<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/myservlet</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>

<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/helloworld*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>

<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/servlet*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>

<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/mservlet*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>

<servlet-mapping>
<servlet-name>MyServlet</servlet-name>
<url-pattern>/*</url-pattern>
</servlet-mapping>
References
[1] Sun Microsystems, Inc. Java Servlet Specification 2.4
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 684
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP API 2023 API8 Security Misconfiguration
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
desc.config.java.j2ee_misconfiguration_excessive_servlet_mappings
Abstract
Multiple form-bean entries with the same name exist. Duplicate form-bean names often indicate left over debug code or a typographical error.
Explanation
Duplicate form-bean names serve no purpose since only the last entry will be registered when the same name is used in multiple <form-bean> tags.

Example 1: The following configuration has two form-bean entries with the same name.

<form-beans>
<form-bean name="loginForm" type="org.apache.struts.validator.DynaValidatorForm">
<form-property name="name" type="java.lang.String" />
<form-property name="password" type="java.lang.String" />
</form-bean>
<form-bean name="loginForm" type="org.apache.struts.validator.DynaActionForm">
<form-property name="favoriteColor" type="java.lang.String" />
</form-bean>
</form-beans>
References
[1] Apache Struts 1.3 Specification
[2] Standards Mapping - Common Weakness Enumeration CWE ID 694
[3] Standards Mapping - OWASP Mobile 2014 M1 Weak Server Side Controls
[4] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2013 A5 Security Misconfiguration
[5] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2017 A6 Security Misconfiguration
[6] Standards Mapping - OWASP Top 10 2021 A05 Security Misconfiguration
[7] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.0 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[8] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.1 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
[9] Standards Mapping - Payment Card Industry Software Security Framework 1.2 Control Objective 4.2 - Critical Asset Protection
desc.config.java.struts_misconfiguration_duplicate_form_bean