CVE-2015-2992
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 · uneditedApache Struts before 2.3.20 has a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability.
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 · moderate confidenceApache Struts versions prior to 2.3.20 contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability, allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts into web pages viewed by other users.
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, < 2.3.20CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Locate Apache Struts library versionCheck the Struts JAR file name in your application's lib directory, or inspect the manifest file (META-INF/MANIFEST.MF) within the struts2-core JAR. The version is typically listed in the Implementation-Version or Bundle-Version field.Affected if The version shown is 2.0.0 or higher but lower than 2.3.20
-
Verify Struts version in application dependenciesIf using a build tool (Maven, Gradle), review your pom.xml or build.gradle file for the struts2-core dependency version. Alternatively, check the lib/struts2-core.jar file naming convention which often includes the version number.Affected if The declared dependency version falls within the range 2.0.0 to 2.3.19 inclusive
-
Confirm Struts is actively serving web requestsReview your web application configuration (web.xml) to ensure the StrutsPrepareAndExecuteFilter or equivalent Struts filter is mapped and active. Check that your application server (Tomcat, Jetty, etc) is running and the Struts-based application is deployed and accessible.Affected if The Struts filter is configured and the application is running, meaning user-supplied input could be processed through vulnerable Struts components
You are affected if your deployed Apache Struts version is 2.0.0 or higher but below 2.3.20 and your application is actively processing web requests.
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 data2.3.20
Upgrade Apache Struts to version 2.3.20 or later to resolve the vulnerability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $4,640.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-2992 — 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-2015-2992 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