CVE-2014-0116
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCookieInterceptor in Apache Struts 2.x before 2.3.20, when a wildcard cookiesName value is used, does not properly restrict access to the getClass method, which allows remote attackers to "manipulate" the ClassLoader and modify session state via a crafted request. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-0113.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCookieInterceptor in Apache Struts 2.x before 2.3.20 fails to properly restrict access to the getClass method when wildcard cookiesName is configured, allowing remote attackers to manipulate the ClassLoader and modify session state via crafted requests. This vulnerability exists as an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-0113.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 2.0.6= 2.0.7= 2.0.8= 2.0.9= 2.0.10= 2.0.11CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Apache Struts 2 versionLocate the struts2-core jar file in your application WEB-INF/lib directory and check its version, or check the pom.xml/build.gradle dependencies for struts2-core versionAffected if The version is 2.0.0 through 2.3.19.x (any version before 2.3.20)
-
Locate CookieInterceptor configurationSearch your Struts XML configuration files (struts.xml, struts-config.xml) or any custom XML files for entries defining CookieInterceptor, typically within an interceptor-stack definitionAffected if CookieInterceptor is defined and used in an interceptor stack
-
Check for wildcard cookiesName patternWithin the CookieInterceptor definition, look for the cookiesName parameter; check if it contains a wildcard pattern such as '*' or '.*' that matches all cookiesAffected if cookiesName is set to a wildcard pattern like '*' or any expression that broadly matches cookie names
-
Verify CookieInterceptor is in the interceptor stackReview your action or package configurations to confirm that the interceptor stack containing CookieInterceptor is applied to your actionsAffected if An action or package references an interceptor stack that includes CookieInterceptor with wildcard cookiesName
You are affected if you are running any Apache Struts 2 version before 2.3.20 AND have CookieInterceptor configured with a wildcard cookiesName pattern in your Struts configuration.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade to Apache Struts 2.3.20 or later to obtain the complete fix, and review CookieInterceptor configurations to avoid overly permissive wildcard cookie name patterns.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,472.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-0116 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2014-0116 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data