RFR: 8148188: Enhance the security libraries to record events of interest
Xuelei Fan
xuelei.fan at oracle.com
Wed Jun 27 20:11:14 UTC 2018
Finished.java
-------------
In each handshake, Finished messages are delivered twice. One from
client, and the other one from the server side. Catch Finished message
and use the final one of them should be sufficient.
In the Finished.java implementation, the signal of the final Finished
message is the handshakeFinished field is set to true.
Please move line 582:
582 recordEvent(chc.conContext.conSession);
to line 558:
556 // handshake context cleanup.
557 chc.handshakeFinished = true;
558
Please move line 632:
632 recordEvent(shc.conContext.conSession);
to line 608:
606 // handshake context cleanup.
607 shc.handshakeFinished = true;
608
Please remove line 838:
838 recordEvent(shc.conContext.conSession);
Please remove line 984:
984 recordEvent(chc.conContext.conSession);
No more comment.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On 6/27/2018 11:57 AM, Xuelei Fan wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> I may reply in several replies.
>
> PKIXMasterCertPathValidator.java
> --------------------------------
> + CertChainEvent cce = new CertChainEvent();
> + if(cce.isEnabled() || EventHelper.loggingSecurity()) {
> + String c = reversedCertList.stream()
> + .map(x -> x.getSerialNumber().toString(16))
> + .collect(Collectors.joining(", "));
> + EventHelper.commitCertChainEvent(cce, c);
> + }
>
> No matter the event or the JFR mechanism is enabled or not, the above
> code will create a new instance. Is the return value of cce.isEnabled()
> dynamically changed or static?
>
> Is there a need to support both logging and JFR? I'm new to record
> events. I did not get the point to use both.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
>
> On 6/26/2018 3:18 PM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>> Erik,
>>
>> I rebased the patch with TLS v1.3 integration today. I hadn't realized
>> how much the handshaker code had changed. Hopefully, I'll get a review
>> from security dev team on that front.
>>
>> Regards the JFR semantics, I believe the edits should match majority
>> of requests . I still have a preference for the test infra design for
>> these new logger/JFR tests used in version 1 of webrev. I think it
>> makes sense to keep the test functionality together - no sense in
>> separating them out into different components IMO. Also, some of the
>> edits to the JFR testing were made to test for the new dual log/record
>> functionality. I might catch up with you tomorrow to see what the best
>> arrangement would be.
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8148188.v2/webrev/
>>
>> regards,
>> Sean.
>>
>>
>> On 25/06/2018 21:22, Seán Coffey wrote:
>>> Many thanks for the review comments Erik. Replies inline.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/06/2018 14:21, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>>>> Hi Sean,
>>>>
>>>> Some of the changes in the webrev belongs to JDK-8203629 and should
>>>> be removed for clarity.
>>>>
>>>> Some initial comments:
>>>>
>>>> default.jfc, profile.jfr:
>>>> The events should not have control="enable-exceptions". The purpose
>>>> of the control attribute is so to provide parameterized
>>>> configuration of events for JMC. As it is now, the security events
>>>> will be enabled when a user turns on the exception events.
>>> Makes sense. I'll remove that parameter.
>>>>
>>>> X509CertEvent:
>>>> You should use milliseconds since epoch to represent a date instead
>>>> of a string value, i.e.
>>>>
>>>> @Label("Valid From")
>>>> @Timestamp(Timestamp.MILLISECONDS_SINCE_EPOCH)
>>>> public long validFrom;
>>>>
>>>> @Label("Valid Until")
>>>> @Timestamp(Timestamp.MILLISECONDS_SINCE_EPOCH)
>>>> public long validUntil;
>>>>
>>> The CertificateValidity class operates on Date Object values. I'll
>>> work with the Date.getTime() method then (and update the Logger
>>> formatting)
>>>> This following annotation adds little value
>>>>
>>>> @Description("Details of Security Property")
>>>>
>>>> I would either remove the annotation, or provide information that
>>>> helps a user understand the event. For instance, what is X509, and
>>>> what kind of certificates are we talking about?
>>> Yes - that looks like the wrong Description. I'll review all of these
>>> fields.
>>>>
>>>> @Category("Java Application")
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit worried that we will pollute the "Java Application"
>>>> namespace if we add lots of JDK events in that category. We may want
>>>> to add a new top level category "Java Development Kit", analogous to
>>>> the "Java Virtual Machine" category, and put all security related
>>>> events in subcategory, perhaps called "Security".
>>> Yes - Open to suggestions. "Security" sounds like a good suggestion.
>>>>
>>>> @Label("X509Cert")
>>>>
>>>> The label should be human readable name, with spaces, title cased
>>>> etc. I would recommend "X.509 Certificate". In general, avoid
>>>> abbreviations like "certs" and instead use labels such as
>>>> "Certificate Chain". The label should be short and not a full sentence.
>>>>
>>>> For details see,
>>>> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/10/docs/api/jdk/jfr/Label.html
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be good to separate testing of JFR and logging into
>>>> different files / tests. I would prefer that the test name is the
>>>> same as the event prefixed with "Test", i.e
>>>> TestX509CertificateEvent, as this is the pattern used by other JFR
>>>> tests.
>>>>
>>> I'll take a look at that pattern again. I've separated out the
>>> current tests into an (a) outer test to analyze the logger output and
>>> (b) the inner test which checks for JFR correctness. I did include
>>> extra logic to make sure that the EventHelper configuration was
>>> working correctly. "Events.assertField" looks very helpful. Thanks
>>> for the pointer.
>>>
>>> Let me take on board the suggestions below and get a new webrev out
>>> on Tuesday.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> Sean.
>>>
>>>> I reworked one of the tests to how I like to see it:
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * @test
>>>> * @key jfr
>>>> * @library /test/lib
>>>> * @run main/othervm jdk.jfr.event.security.TestX509CertificateEvent
>>>> */
>>>> public class TestX509CertificateEvent {
>>>>
>>>> private static final String CERTIFICATE_1 = "...";
>>>> private static final String CERTIFICATE_2 = "...";
>>>>
>>>> public static void main(String... args) throws
>>>> CertificateException {
>>>>
>>>> Recording r = new Recording();
>>>> r.enable(EventNames.X509Certificate).withoutStackTrace();
>>>> r.start();
>>>>
>>>> CertificateFactory cf =
>>>> CertificateFactory.getInstance("X.509");
>>>> cf.generateCertificate(new
>>>> ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_1.getBytes()));
>>>> cf.generateCertificate(new
>>>> ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_2.getBytes()));
>>>>
>>>> // Make sure only one event per certificate
>>>> cf.generateCertificate(new
>>>> ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_1.getBytes()));
>>>> cf.generateCertificate(new
>>>> ByteArrayInputStream(CERTIFICATE_2.getBytes()));
>>>>
>>>> r.stop();
>>>>
>>>> List<RecordedEvent> events = Events.fromRecording(r);
>>>> Asserts.assertEquals(events.size(), 2, "Expected two X.509
>>>> Certificate events");
>>>>
>>>> assertEvent(events, "1000", "SHA256withRSA",
>>>> "CN=SSLCertificate, O=SomeCompany",
>>>> "CN=Intermediate CA Cert, O=SomeCompany",
>>>> "RSA", 2048);
>>>> assertEvent(events, "1000", "SHA256withRSA",
>>>> "CN=SSLCertificate, O=SomeCompany",
>>>> "CN=Intermediate CA Cert, O=SomeCompany",
>>>> "RSA", 2048);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> private static void assertEvent(List<RecordedEvent> events,
>>>> String certID, String algId, String subject,
>>>> String issuer, String keyType, int length) throws
>>>> Exception {
>>>>
>>>> for (RecordedEvent e : events) {
>>>> if (e.getString("serialNumber").equals(certID)) {
>>>> Events.assertField(e, "algId").equal(algId);
>>>> ...
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> System.out.println(events);
>>>> throw new Exception("Could not find event with Cert ID: " +
>>>> certID);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The reworked example uses the Events.assertField method, which will
>>>> give context if the assertion fails. Keeping the test simple, means
>>>> it can be analyzed quickly if it fails in testing. There is no new
>>>> test framework to learn, or methods to search for, and it is usually
>>>> not hard to determine if the failure is product, test or
>>>> infrastructure related, and what component (team) should be assigned
>>>> the issue. The use of EventNames.X509Certificate means all
>>>> occurrences of the event can be tracked done in an IDE using find by
>>>> reference.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Erik
>>>>
>>>>> Following on from the recent JDK-8203629 code review, I'd like to
>>>>> propose enhancements on how we can record events in security libs.
>>>>> The introduction of the JFR libraries can give us much better ways
>>>>> of examining JDK actions. For the initial phase, I'm looking to
>>>>> enhance some key security library events in JDK 11 so that they can
>>>>> be either recorded to JFR, logged to a traditional logger, or both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples of how useful JFR recordings could be can be seen here :
>>>>>
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/X509Event_1.png
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/securityProp_1.png
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/securityProp_2.png
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/event_snaps/TLSEvent_1.png
>>>>>
>>>>> securityProp_2.png gives an example of how the JFR recording can be
>>>>> queried to quickly locate events of interest (in this case, code
>>>>> setting the jdk.tls.* Security properties). I still need to clean
>>>>> up the TLSEvents testcase to improve test coverage and hope to do
>>>>> that in coming days.
>>>>>
>>>>> JBS record :
>>>>> * https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8148188
>>>>>
>>>>> webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~coffeys/webrev.8148188.v1/webrev/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
More information about the security-dev
mailing list