CVE-2025-54656
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 · unedited** UNSUPPORTED WHEN ASSIGNED ** Improper Output Neutralization for Logs vulnerability in Apache Struts. This issue affects Apache Struts Extras: before 2. When using LookupDispatchAction, in some cases, Struts may print untrusted input to the logs without any filtering. Specially-crafted input may lead to log output where part of the message masquerades as a separate log line, confusing consumers of the logs (either human or automated). As this project is retired, we do not plan to release a version that fixes this issue. Users are recommended to find an alternative or restrict access to the instance to trusted users. NOTE: This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.
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 confidenceLog injection vulnerability in Apache Struts Extras LookupDispatchAction where untrusted user input is written to logs without sanitization. Attackers can craft input containing newline characters to masquerade as separate log entries, confusing log analysis tools and potentially hiding malicious activity in log monitoring systems.
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< 2.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
Identify Apache Struts Extras presenceSearch for struts-extras*.jar files in your application WEB-INF/lib directory, Java classpath, or dependency manifest (pom.xml, build.gradle)Affected if The Apache Struts Extras library is found in your application dependencies or deployed files
-
Determine Apache Struts Extras versionInspect the struts-extras JAR file MANIFEST.MF for the Implementation-Version attribute, or check your dependency management tool for the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is less than 2.0 (i.e., any 1.x version)
-
Detect LookupDispatchAction usageSearch codebase for classes extending LookupDispatchAction, or inspect struts-config.xml for type="lookup" attribute in action mappingsAffected if Your application uses LookupDispatchAction in any Struts configuration
-
Verify user input reaches loggingReview application code where LookupDispatchAction subclasses process user requests, and inspect application log files for raw user-submitted parameter valuesAffected if User-supplied request parameters are written to logs without sanitization (look for newline characters in log entries that could split entries)
You are affected if Apache Struts Extras version less than 2.0 is deployed and your application uses LookupDispatchAction to process untrusted user input that gets logged.
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.
dbcve · scoped2.0
Since Apache Struts Extras is retired with no fix planned, migrate away from LookupDispatchAction to a supported framework, or implement input validation at the application/WAF layer and restrict access to trusted users only.
- 1. Assess current usage: Identify all applications and components using Apache Struts Extras (struts-extras library), particularly any use of LookupDispatchAction.
- 2. Plan migration: Since this is a retired, unsupported project with no security fixes forthcoming, develop a migration plan to a supported alternative.
- 3. Migrate away: Replace LookupDispatchAction with a supported Struts action type (such as ActionSupport or a custom Action) that properly handles input validation and logging.
- 4. Implement input validation: Ensure all user inputs are validated before logging to prevent log injection attacks.
- 5. Restrict access: As an interim measure while planning migration, restrict access to the affected instance to trusted users only to reduce exposure.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $8,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-54656 — 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-2025-54656 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