Validation fields that do not appear in forms they are associated with indicate that the validation logic is out of date.
View on MITREIt 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.
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.
No mitigation information available for this CWE.
To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the XML configuration files.
To find the issue in the implementation, manual checks or automated static analysis could be applied to the XML configuration files.
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.
public class DateRangeForm extends ValidatorForm { String startDate, endDate; public void setStartDate(String startDate) {this.startDate = startDate;} public void setEndDate(String endDate) {this.endDate = endDate;} }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.
<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>Additional facts reviewed against primary or authoritative security sources.
Documented detection approaches include Automated Static Analysis, and Manual Static Analysis; recorded impacts include Other; related weaknesses include CWE-1164, and CWE-20. Use these source-defined anchors to turn CWE-110 into implementation, review, and verification checks for the affected component.
CWE-110: Struts: Validator Without Form Field — MITRE CWEUse NIST SSDF practices to make prevention of CWE-110, Struts: Validator Without Form Field, an explicit development outcome. Translate the CWE definition into security requirements and design constraints, choose safer implementation patterns and toolchain checks, and define acceptance evidence before release. Feed every confirmed occurrence back into the requirements, design review, and coding rules so the same root cause is removed across the product rather than patched in one location.
NIST SP 800-218 Secure Software Development Framework — National Institute of Standards and TechnologyUse CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog to test whether a vulnerability mapped to CWE-110, Struts: Validator Without Form Field, has evidence of exploitation in the wild. Confirm the CVE-to-CWE root-cause mapping independently before attaching the example, then capture the affected product, required action, and remediation deadline. A missing KEV match is not evidence that the weakness is unexploited, and a KEV entry must not be generalized to every occurrence of this CWE.
Known Exploited Vulnerabilities Catalog — Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security AgencyApply MITRE's full root-cause mapping guidance when using CWE-110, Struts: Validator Without Form Field. Separate weakness language from attacker prerequisites and technical impact, check the entry's abstraction and vulnerability-mapping notes, and prefer the most specific Base or Variant supported by the evidence. Record the rejected alternatives and require an independent review before the mapping is used for remediation trends or program metrics.
CVE to CWE Root Cause Mapping Guidance — MITRE CWEApply MITRE's root-cause mapping quick tips to CWE-110, Struts: Validator Without Form Field. Confirm the finding describes the causal weakness rather than an impact or attack pattern, compare the abstraction and mapping notes with plausible alternatives, and have a second reviewer challenge the selection. Preserve the evidence and reasoning so recurring defects can be measured against one consistent identifier.
CVE to CWE Root Cause Mapping Quick Tips — MITRE CWECWE-110: Struts: Validator Without Form Field is a Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) entry maintained by MITRE. 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.
If exploited, CWE-110 (Struts: Validator Without Form Field) it can compromise Other, leading to outcomes such as Other.
CWE-110 can be detected using Automated Static Analysis and Manual Static Analysis. Combining automated tooling with manual review typically yields the best coverage.
CWE-110 commonly affects Java. Note that weaknesses are often language-agnostic patterns, so secure coding practices apply broadly.
A CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) like CWE-110 describes a category of software weakness — the underlying flaw type. A CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) identifies a specific, real-world vulnerability in a particular product. In short, a CWE is the kind of mistake, and a CVE is an instance of that mistake being found in software.