[12] RFR 8193859: Allow user provided ObjectInputFilter in SealedObject and SignedObject
Sean Mullan
sean.mullan at oracle.com
Wed Aug 22 20:55:58 UTC 2018
One thing I am curious about. Is there a reason why
getObject(ObjectInputFilter) requires a permission check?
In this case, the caller is the one creating the filter and passing it
in, so the caller can only cause harm to themselves, and the
ObjectInputStream is a local variable which is not returned. This method
also does not mutate the contents of the SignedObject (or SealedObject)
... so I don't see the risk here. I think you can just wrap
ObjectInputStream.setObjectInputFilter in doPrivileged.
--Sean
On 8/22/18 2:37 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
> Updated webrev at
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8193859/webrev.02/
>
> Changes:
>
> 1) More spec change
>
> - describing the filter in class spec
>
> - mentioning the system filter in existing getObject() methods
>
> - add "@throws InvalidClassException" to all getObject() methods
>
> 2) More test cases
>
> - check SecurityException when a security manager is set
>
> - set the system filter to see how existing getObject() works
>
> The 2 tests are very similar but they belong to jdk_security1 and jdk_security2. Therefore I haven't combined them.
>
> Thanks
> Max
>
>> On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:56 PM, Weijun Wang <weijun.wang at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please take a review at the updated webrev at
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8193859/webrev.01
>>
>> Changes only in doc, including
>>
>> 1) The "2018-8-15 updates" in the CSR [1]
>>
>> 2) formatting
>>
>> Thanks
>> Max
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8193887
>>
>>> On Aug 14, 2018, at 11:19 PM, Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at Oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2018 10:59 AM, Weijun Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> s/initial process-wide filter/system filter/?
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Max
>>>>
>>>>> [1] 8202675 Replace process-wide terminology in serial filtering to be consistent
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Roger
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list