JEP411: Missing use-case: Monitoring / restricting libraries

Peter Firmstone peter.firmstone at zeus.net.au
Wed May 5 04:04:41 UTC 2021


A VALUABLE LESSON FOR ANY JAVA DEVELOPER: DON'T PUBLISH ANY java.* 
package namespace API'S THAT MAY BE AT RISK OF LATER REMOVAL IN YOUR 
API,  java.* API's ONCE REMOVED CANNOT BE REPLACED.  IF YOU ARE 
CONCERNED SOMETHING MAY BE REMOVED IN FUTURE, SUBCLASS IT IN YOUR API, 
OR CREATE AN INTERFACE WITH SUBCLASS DECORATOR, SO THAT YOU HAVE SOME 
CONTROL OVER BACKWARD COMPATIBLE API EVOLUTION.

On 5/05/2021 10:08 am, Ron Pressler wrote:
> Resent with plain-text formatting (I hope) & corrections/rephrasing
>
>> On 4 May 2021, at 03:49, Peter Firmstone <peter.firmstone at zeus.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure millions of developers don't use the security infrastructure because they only have low value data to protect, or it belongs to someone else and developers that do, can use it incorrectly, it's probably worse to do the latter, but then people synchronize incorrectly too, but we don't remove synchronization because of that.
>>
> The Security Manager hasn’t been a central part of Java’s server-side security for years. Some of the most critical and
> best-secured systems in the world are written in Java, and they don’t use the Security Manager, so let’s not equate a
> particular sandboxing mechanism designed for untrusted code with security.

Got any example best-secured systems?

I think we are talking past each other here.   You keep talking about 
untrusted code, which sounds like applets to me.  I've read and still 
have a copy of Li Gong's book, applets were only one of the 
considerations.  I am talking about authorization and access control.  
We use and develop distributed or p2p systems, we don't allow untrusted 
code to run at all, never ever, that's a dumb idea, so lets stop talking 
about untrusted code, we don't use that.    We do utilize dynamic 
downloaded code from others and use dynamic class loading, we verify 
this prior to loading.  We check it's authorized to run before running 
it.  Again I repeat, we do not run untrusted code, that would allow an 
attacker to cause denial of service etc, the JVM has no control over 
badly behaving code.

We've been using this since Java 1.4, to control access to networks, 
file systems and other custom permissions we created, it is used to 
protect access to sensitive data.  We are still using it.  I understand 
access control will be removed:

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/security/spec/security-spec.doc4.html#20389

We would like to continue restricting access to data after the above is 
removed.  Will Java be introducing new Role Based Access Control API or 
something similar?

Our software will fail to run on Java after the above is removed.   I 
understand we have to remove access control functionality from our 
software for it to continue functioning? We do need to understand how 
this will impact security, I think you are trying to convince me or 
yourself that security will not be impacted?  We can't just assume we 
can remove access control and our software will be no less secure.

What is the new API for access control in Java?

Obviously we won't have a call stack with domains, I don't know how we 
will transfer the user Subject to other threads, for TLS and Kerberos 
connections.  No doubt something is planned.

Is the recommendation simply not to upgrade Java until new access 
control API is developed?


<SNIP>
>> Please provide some examples,  migration options suggestions will be appreciated.
> I’ve jotted down some thoughts in a blog post: https://inside.java/2021/04/23/security-and-sandboxing-post-securitymanager/

Noted, a good start.  I get the feeling this JEP is being rushed through 
however, with little regard for those of us who were foolish enough to 
use Java's security API's and will have to suffer the consequences.


>
>
>> With Serialization, we've been given more than ample notice to do something about migrating away from it, but OpenJDK paints over it and wastes resources adding features to putty and paint over it some more, features that no one uses.  Removing Serialization has greater appeal :)
>>
>> This step to remove SecurityManager is so sudden with no replacement options, it's a broken promise to developers, who've invested in Java.
>>
>> Removing SecurityManager has a significantly negative effect on security for me, just so you know.  I'm not happy about its proposed removal, but I realise there's not much I can do about it, other than request it be done in the least painful manner.
>>
>> I began learning Java over 20 years ago, I understand the need to keep Java relevant, however move quickly and break things is for younger software platforms.
>
> Not everyone has to agree with every priority decision, and the process doesn’t require convincing every last Java developer. But
> it is not sudden, and there will be alternatives for those aspects of Security Manager that more people use. I don’t think it is fair
> to harm millions of Java developers by diverting resources from features they want to features very few people want, as long as
> a reasonable removal process is employed, and I think it is here.
>
>> Once SecurityManager has been removed, we will lose control over who has access to sensitive data, so it's likely we will be stuck on the last version of Java that provides SecurityManager.  The best way I can see for those who need the level of security that SecurityManager provides is to maintain a community LTS edition on OpenJDK, it will be much easier to maintain and backport security patches if Serialization in its current form has been removed, as it will likely have been removed from later versions of Java by that time.
> I disagree. I don’t think that the Security Manager offers a higher level of security, just a very elaborate and fine-grained one.

Right now I can limit network access using a permission, or I can 
prevent file access, database access, or even access to objects 
themselves.  This is for generally well behaved party's, but we still 
have to have controls in place.

https://www.acsac.org/2009/program/keynotes/gong.pdf

Regarding a higher level of security:

Q1. What does an attacker who is using serialization as an attack vector 
want to gain?

A1. Property: intellectual, fiat currency, identity theft etc.

Q2. Why does an attacker use Serialization as the attack vector?

A2. Because it allows an attacker to create any object they like in the 
JVM, even inject code, the attacker first attempts privilege 
escalation.  Java makes this easy, because the implementation doesn't 
place an unprivileged ProtectionDomain onto the call stack.  A simple 
initial fix would have been to modify the AccessControlContext to 
include an unprivileged ProtectionDomain on the call stack when a user 
creates an instance of ObjectInputStream.   Granted there were still 
cases of JVM classes that deserialized into a doPrivileged call that 
needed to be addressed.

Q3. SecurityManager and policy providers use whitlists.   The complaint 
about SecurityManager is that whitelisting is too complex.  Why 
entertain a new white listing api for Java Serialization, when 
complexity is the argument for removing SecurityManager, but it's even 
worse than SecurityManager, at least with the policy whitelist you have 
some forward knowledge.

A3. Any ideas?


>
>> Lets be clear Java will no longer be able to finely control access to sensitive data with the removal of SecurityManager.  I'm sure it will be a great bonus for OpenJDK dev's not to have to think about, but it will impact some developers significantly, who would like to do so with the least suffering possible.
> I wouldn’t say Java (or anything else, for that matter) is “able" to do it now, except in the sense that people (scientists) are
> able (in a billion-dollar particle accelerator) to transmute lead into gold (a few atoms). We’ve had twenty five years to convince the world this could work, the world isn’t buying, and our job isn’t to sell ideas but to serve millions of developers by giving them
> what we believe they need now, not what we wished they wanted.
>
> — Ron

Of course Java is "able" to do access control, it's well documented, I 
have working examples.  No security defense is 100% effective, if you 
look at the history of defenses, they continue to evolve.  Just because 
ObjectInputStream was a huge security hole, it didn't inject an 
unprivileged ProtectionDomain onto the stack, which would have stopped a 
number of deserialization gadgets.   ObjectInputStream runs as 
privileged code, tut, tut, tut!   Perl taint mode anyone?

Java 6 introduced a security feature where an object will not be 
constructed if Object's constructor is not called, so that invariants 
must be satisfied before object creation.  Java Serialziation bypasses 
this.  Prior to Java 6, objects could be left in a partially constructed 
state and obtained via a finalizer attack.

Besides, serialization whitelists don't protect against denial of 
service, so why have them at all if you using trusted systems and TLS 
connections?  Java Serialization should never be used to process 
untrusted data, because it doesn't and cannot validate invariants until 
after objects are constructed which is too late. As soon as you 
implement Serializable, all the effort you put into defensively coding 
constructors can be bypassed.   So why code defensively at all if we 
leave a back door wide open anyway?  All code is trusted now right, soon 
we can make sure all connections are secure, so we don't need to worry 
about input validation anymore either right, because the users are 
trusted now too? Maybe we should just whitelist the classes allowed to 
run on the JVM and not worry about coding defensively?  Sounds silly, 
well that's how it sounds to me, just thought I'd put it into perspective.

Java Serialization still compromises the security of the JVM because it 
doesn't prevent object creation if invariants aren't satisfied, the 
vulnerability is still there, and future attackers will find a way take 
advantage of it for that reason.

It is clear that no further progress will be made in this matter and I 
will simply have to live with the consequences. Stick a fork in me, 
because I'm done.

-- 
Regards,
  
Peter Firmstone
Zeus Project Services Pty Ltd.



More information about the security-dev mailing list