Apache » Struts » 2.0.11.2 : Security Vulnerabilities, CVEs, Published In 2012

Apache Struts 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via a long parameter name, which is processed as an OGNL expression.

The token check mechanism in Apache Struts 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 does not properly validate the token name configuration parameter, which allows remote attackers to perform cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks by setting the token name configuration parameter to a session attribute.

Apache Struts 2 before 2.2.3.1 evaluates a string as an OGNL expression during the handling of a conversion error, which allows remote attackers to modify run-time data values, and consequently execute arbitrary code, via invalid input to a field.

The DebuggingInterceptor component in Apache Struts before 2.3.1.1, when developer mode is used, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via unspecified vectors. NOTE: the vendor characterizes this behavior as not "a security vulnerability itself.

The CookieInterceptor component in Apache Struts before 2.3.1.1 does not use the parameter-name whitelist, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted HTTP Cookie header that triggers Java code execution through a static method.

The ExceptionDelegator component in Apache Struts before 2.2.3.1 interprets parameter values as OGNL expressions during certain exception handling for mismatched data types of properties, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java code via a crafted parameter.

Apache Struts 2.3.1.2 and earlier, 2.3.19-2.3.23, provides interfaces that do not properly restrict access to collections such as the session and request collections, which might allow remote attackers to modify run-time data values via a crafted parameter to an application that implements an affected interface, as demonstrated by the SessionAware, RequestAware, ApplicationAware, ServletRequestAware, ServletResponseAware, and ParameterAware interfaces. NOTE: the vendor disputes the significance of this report because of an "easy work-around in existing apps by configuring the interceptor."