STIGViewer Support

XML-based applications must mitigate DoS attacks by using XML filters, parser options, or gateways.

Overview

Finding IDVersionRule IDIA ControlsSeverity
V-222593APSC-DV-002390SV-222593r961620_ruleCCI-002385medium
Description
DoS is a condition when a resource is not available for legitimate users. When this occurs, the organization either cannot accomplish its mission or must operate at degraded capacity. XML-based applications are susceptible to DoS attacks due to the nature of XML parsing being processor intensive and complicated. Best practice for parsing XML to avoid DoS include: - Using a proven XML parser - Using an XML gateway that provides DoS protection - Using parser options that provide limits on recursive payloads, oversized payloads, and entity expansion. This requirement addresses the configuration of applications to mitigate the impact of DoS attacks that have occurred or are ongoing on application availability. For each application, known and potential DoS attacks must be identified and solutions for each type implemented. A variety of technologies exist to limit or, in some cases, eliminate the effects of DoS attacks (e.g., limiting processes or restricting the number of sessions the application opens at one time). Employing increased capacity and bandwidth, combined with service redundancy, may reduce the susceptibility to some DoS attacks.
STIGDate
Application Security and Development Security Technical Implementation Guide2025-09-09

Related Frameworks

1 mapping across 4 frameworks
SCF0 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 3 hops (13) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

MON-01Continuous Monitoring
1.00
MON-01.1Intrusion Detection & Prevention Systems (IDS & IPS)
1.00
MON-01.3Inbound & Outbound Communications Traffic
1.00
MON-01.4System Generated Alerts
1.00
MON-01.8Security Event Monitoring
1.00
NET-01Network Security Controls (NSC)
1.00
NET-02Layered Network Defenses
1.00
SEA-01Secure Engineering Principles
1.00
SEA-02Alignment With Enterprise Architecture
1.00
CAP-01Capacity & Performance Management
0.50

+3 more (top 10 by confidence shown)

NIST 800-530 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 2 hops (36) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

AC-10Concurrent Session Control
1.00
AC-17(9)Disconnect or Disable Access
1.00
AC-2(4)Automated Audit Actions
1.00
AC-3Access Enforcement
1.00
AC-4Information Flow Enforcement
1.00
AC-6(9)Log Use of Privileged Functions
1.00
AU-12Audit Record Generation
1.00
AU-3Content of Audit Records
1.00
AU-5Response to Audit Logging Process Failures
1.00
CM-11(2)Software Installation with Privileged Status
1.00

+26 more (top 10 by confidence shown)

CCI1 mapping
NIST CSF 2.00 mappings

No source states a mapping between these directly.

Also reachable in 3 hops (3) derived by us, not asserted by any source

Each of these is a route we composed by chaining published mappings. No publisher states a relationship between the two endpoints.

Who does this work

12 NICE work roles and 9 EC-Council certifications.

This is an inference across published mappings, not a single claim by anyone. This check maps to a control, which maps to a Cybersecurity Framework outcome, which NIST assigns to the work roles below. EC-Council separately maps its certifications to those same roles.

A certification prepares someone for a role. It is not evidence that a holder is qualified, and neither NIST nor EC-Council has stated that any certification here addresses this check.

Work-role assignments published by NIST (NICE Framework Components 2.2.0 and the CSF 2.0 OLIR crosswalk). Certification mappings published by EC-Council.

Details

Check Text (C-222593r961620_chk)

Review the application architecture documentation and interview the application administrator to identify what steps have been taken to protect the XML aspect of the application from DoS attacks. If the application does not contain or utilize XML, the requirement is not applicable. Ask the application administrator to demonstrate how the application is configured to provide the following protections: - Validation against recursive payloads - Validation against oversized payloads - Protection against XML entity expansion - Validation against overlong element names - Optimized configuration for maximum message throughput If the application administrator cannot demonstrate how these protections are implemented either within the application itself or by third-party tools or utilities like an XML gateway, this is a finding.

Fix Text (F-36212r864576_fix)

Implement: - Validation against recursive payloads - Validation against oversized payloads - Protection against XML entity expansion - Validation against overlong element names - Optimized configuration for maximum message throughput in order to ensure DoS attacks against web services are limited.