Improper Use of Validation Framework

Draft Base
Structure: Simple
Description

This vulnerability occurs when a software application either fails to use or incorrectly implements a built-in or library-provided input validation framework.

Extended Description

Modern programming languages and libraries offer robust validation frameworks designed to make input checking simpler and more consistent. When developers bypass or misconfigure these tools, they often have to write custom validation logic, which is error-prone and can leave gaps that attackers exploit. This manual approach also hurts code maintainability, as other developers might not recognize the scattered validation logic meant to replace the standard framework. While the missing framework itself isn't directly exploitable, it frequently leads to weak or inconsistent input sanitization downstream, creating openings for injection attacks or data corruption. Managing this at scale is difficult; an ASPM like Plexicus can help you track and remediate these architectural flaws across your entire stack, ensuring validation frameworks are used correctly to enforce security from the start.

Common Consequences 1
Scope: Integrity

Impact: Unexpected State

Unchecked input leads to cross-site scripting, process control, and SQL injection vulnerabilities, among others.

Detection Methods 1
Automated Static Analysis
Some instances of improper input validation can be detected using automated static analysis. A static analysis tool might allow the user to specify which application-specific methods or functions perform input validation; the tool might also have built-in knowledge of validation frameworks such as Struts. The tool may then suppress or de-prioritize any associated warnings. This allows the analyst to focus on areas of the software in which input validation does not appear to be present. Except in the cases described in the previous paragraph, automated static analysis might not be able to recognize when proper input validation is being performed, leading to false positives - i.e., warnings that do not have any security consequences or require any code changes.
Potential Mitigations 1
Phase: Implementation
Properly use provided input validation frameworks.
Applicable Platforms
Languages:
Not Language-Specific : Undetermined
Modes of Introduction
Architecture and Design
Implementation
Related Weaknesses