New candidate JEP: 411: Deprecate the Security Manager for Removal

[Sean Mullan]

On 4/29/21 2:44 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> 
> Also, from the point of view of Apache NetBeans, here’s a list of our 
> concerns with these developments:
> 
> https://blogs.apache.org/netbeans/entry/jep-411-deprecate-the-security 
> <https://blogs.apache.org/netbeans/entry/jep-411-deprecate-the-security>
> 
> Apache NetBeans doesn't use java.lang.SecurityManager to guarantee 
> security, but rather to gain additional insight into the JVM's behavior. 
> Without having such insights, the IDE's user experience would be 
> severely affected.
> 
> Are replacement APIs being designed and will they be provided for 
> evaluation before JEP-411 is integrated?

One of the Goals [1] in JEP 411 is:

- Evaluate whether new APIs or mechanisms are needed to address specific 
narrow use cases for which the Security Manager has been employed, such 
as blocking System.exit().

Thus, it is not a goal of this JEP to design replacements; however it is 
a goal of the JEP to identify potential use cases that may need 
replacements. Those cases would be explored more and if considered 
important enough defined in other Enhancements or JEPs.

The next update of the JEP will include additional text about some other 
SM use cases.

Thanks,
Sean

[1] https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411#Goals

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 at 07:38, Peter Firmstone 
> <peter.firmstone at zeus.net.au <mailto:peter.firmstone at zeus.net.au>> wrote:
> 
>     Which version of Java is this planned for?   Will the last version
>     supporting the security manager be a long term support version, eg back
>     ports of security patches and TLS technologies?
> 
>     We have our own security manager implementation and policy provider
>     implementations.  Both of these are high performance and non-blocking
>     and we are able to dynamically grant and revoke some permissions.
>     While I acknowledge the Java policy implementation has a significant
>     performance impact, due to blocking permission checks, ours is less
>     than
>     1%.  Our software doesn't share PermissionCollection instances among
>     threads, or even have a Permissions cache, PermissionCollection's are
>     generated for each permission check and discarded for garbage
>     collection, the Permission object themselves are cached (after
>     initialization and safe publication), as are the results of repeated
>     permission checks.  We also have our own Permission implementations.
> 
>     We have tools that generate policy files with least privilege, although
>     we will manually alter them with wildcards, for network connections for
>     instance.
> 
>     In our software, dynamic permissions are granted after
>     authentication of
>     TLS connections.
> 
>     It is too early for me to tell if there are suitable replacement
>     technologies available.  I can understand the motivation for reducing
>     Java's software development burden, but I think this version of Java
>     might be the last for us, it would certainly be good if a long term
>     support version was available, perhaps indefinitely lol.
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Peter Firmstone
>     Zeus Project Services Pty Ltd.
> 
> 
>     On 16/04/2021 4:05 am, mark.reinhold at oracle.com
>     <mailto:mark.reinhold at oracle.com> wrote:
>      > https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411 <https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/411>
>      >
>      >    Summary: Deprecate the Security Manager for removal in a future
>      >    release. The Security Manager dates from Java 1.0. It has not
>     been the
>      >    primary means of securing client-side Java code for many
>     years, and it
>      >    has rarely been used to secure server-side code. To move Java
>     forward,
>      >    we intend to deprecate the Security Manager for removal in
>     concert with
>      >    the legacy Applet API (JEP 398).
>      >
>      > - Mark
>