RFR: 8242565: Policy initialization issues when the denyAfter constraint is enabled

Weijun Wang weijun.wang at oracle.com
Wed Apr 15 07:30:23 UTC 2020



> On Apr 14, 2020, at 1:00 AM, Sean Mullan <sean.mullan at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> When a SecurityManager is enabled, early code paths that involve ServiceLoader (SL) can trigger permission checks that cause parsing of a custom policy file to fail due to recursive processing of the policy file.
> 
> I have fixed two of these issues which can occur under the following conditions:
> 
> 1. SecurityManager enabled
> 2. Signed JAR on the classpath
> 3. Policy file granting permission based on who signed jar and a keystore entry containing the alias/key
> 4. Code triggering a permission check based on that grant
> 5. A SHA-1 denyAfter constraint set in the jdk.jar.disabledAlgorithms property in the java.security file
> 
> Parsing of the denyAfter constraint is required to verify the signed JAR, which happens very early. This causes SL to search for a LocaleProvider to parse the denyAfter date field which triggers a permission check, causes the policy machinery to bootstrap, and which triggers further permission checks, etc.
> 
> The first issue is that PKCS12KeyStore is unable to verify the integrity of the keystore entry in the custom policy file because it cannot find a "PBE" AlgorithmParameters implementation. I fixed this by adding "SunJCE" to the list of providers that are automatically installed during signed JAR verification.
> 
> The second issue is also in PKCS12 KeyStore where it tries to instantiate a java.text.Collator which also uses SL and thus triggers a recursive permission check. This was fixed by using a lazy initialization Holder pattern.

Can we just add a "collator" argument to the getPassWithModifier() method? This looks ugly but we already have "rb".

Thanks,
Max

> 
> webrev: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mullan/webrevs/8242565/webrev.00/
> bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8242565
> 
> More details and stack traces can be found in the bug.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sean




More information about the security-dev mailing list