Timeframe for JEP-411 completely removing SecurityManager APIs

[Peter Firmstone]

Our software was never designed to run without SM enabled.  We will need 
to instrument the Java API's with some access controls, this will be 
reliant on the removal of finalizers, or the option to disable them.

In our case deserialization is decided by the permission granted to the 
authenticated remote user.   Deserialization also has a number of 
different categories based on risk.   For example explicit permission is 
required to deserialize a MarshalledObject, in this case the 
MarshalledObject is only used for equals comparison, the 
MarshalledObject is never itself unmarshalled, checked by code audit 
before granting this permission.  The ability to class load remote code 
dynamically is also determined by permission.

Our software attempts to set the security manager if it hasn't been set.

We realise that this is no longer the recommended way to secure Java 
software, however our software will be insecure without SM until we can 
replace its functionality.

The problem is, OpenJDK is telling us that this is not the best way to 
secure Java, that there are better alternatives, however without SM our 
software will be insecure, until we are able to redesign it, 
unentangling our dependency on SM isn't a simple problem to solve.

I guess I'm just trying to say we need more time, the process of 
extricating SM for security will take years, if we can leave SM as it is 
in deprecated form for a number of years, that would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Peter.

On 27/04/2022 3:38 am, Sean Mullan wrote:
>
>
> On 4/26/22 1:06 PM, Scott Stark wrote:
>> By "migration feature" I'm talking about being able to retain the 
>> type of library code where one has a conditional call to an 
>> AccessController::doPrivileged(...) method that is only done when 
>> System.getSecurityManager() is not null. Not having to remove this 
>> code in all dependent libraries for a given Jakarta EE application 
>> server product in order to run on Java SE 21 is seen as necessary to 
>> navigate supporting application servers over a range of Java SE 
>> versions. The general consensus was that having to deal with Java SE 
>> 11, 17 and 21 would only be possible if this SecurityManager related 
>> code could remain as is, even if the only executed path would be 
>> for System.getSecurityManager() == null. We can deal with a gradual 
>> degradation of the SecurityManager behavior, but it was unclear if 
>> Java SE 21 was looking for a complete removal of the APIs the 
>> libraries use.
>
> Yes, we understand these concerns. We recognize the compatibility 
> issues and the importance for code using the SM APIs to continue to 
> work as if an SM has not been enabled. This is the motivation behind 
> the language in the JEP that discusses a gradual degradation and 
> phasing out of the SM APIs until the compatibility risk is low enough 
> that removal is acceptable.
>
> Also, you mention SE 21, but as of yet there is not yet a targeted 
> release for the SM removal. There will likely be a JEP for the removal 
> of the SM and this will need to go through several phases of the JEP 
> process before it can be targeted to a specific release.
>
>> I'm sure many of the Jakarta EE platform dev members have code 
>> repositories to offer for scanning to aide in determining when the 
>> SecurityManager dependencies have been removed. If there is a avenue 
>> for that information, please let me know.
>
> Thanks for that offer. I don't have an avenue for that information 
> yet, but I will see if we can start creating a list of significant 
> SM-enabled libraries and other projects that we can monitor over time.
>
> --Sean
>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2022 at 11:09:22 AM, Sean Mullan <sean.mullan at oracle.com 
>> <mailto:sean.mullan at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>> Hello Scott,
>>>
>>> On 4/25/22 2:25 PM, Scott Stark wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I'm Scott Stark of Red Hat, and a member of the Jakarta EE platform 
>>>> dev
>>>> group (EEPD). I'm currently coordinating the Jakarta EE 10 release 
>>>> that
>>>> is targeting June of this year (2022). The removal of the
>>>> SecurityManager as described in JEP-411 has been a topic for the 
>>>> EEPD on
>>>> may calls this year. Recent discussions make it clear that any
>>>> SecurityManager alternative would need to be taken up by the EEPD, and
>>>> such an effort is going to be a non-trivial undertaking, and may 
>>>> not be
>>>> addressed at all.
>>>>
>>>> A general concern among vendors in the EEPD is the timeframe for the
>>>> code that bridges between the JVM running with and without a
>>>> SecurityManager instance needing to be updated. Such code is the 
>>>> subject
>>>> of this JEP-411 paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> "In feature releases after Java 18, we will degrade other Security
>>>> Manager APIs so that they remain in place but with limited or no
>>>> functionality. For example, we may revise 
>>>> AccessController::doPrivileged
>>>> simply to run the given action, or revise System::getSecurityManager
>>>> always to return null. This will allow libraries that support the
>>>> Security Manager and were compiled against previous Java releases to
>>>> continue to work without change or even recompilation. We expect to
>>>> remove the APIs once the compatibility risk of doing so declines to an
>>>> acceptable level."
>>>>
>>>> Of particular interest is the timeframe for "remove the APIs once the
>>>> compatibility risk of doing so declines to an acceptable level".
>>>>
>>>> Vendors in EEPD would like to see Java SE 21 ship with a migration
>>>> feature along the lines of the proposed 
>>>> "AccessController::doPrivileged
>>>> simply to run the given action, or revise System::getSecurityManager
>>>> always to return null" behaviors.
>>>
>>> Can you clarify what you mean by "a migration feature" and also provide
>>> some background as to why vendors in EEPD would like to see this? Do 
>>> you
>>> mean something like a system property that enables the degraded 
>>> behavior
>>> as described above?
>>>
>>>> Is there some metric for tracking "when the compatibility risk of 
>>>> doing
>>>> so declines to an acceptable level."? I believe the EEPD vendors would
>>>> like readiness of their projects and upstream dependencies to 
>>>> somehow be
>>>> included in any such tracking.
>>>
>>> So, first we do not yet have a proposed target date for when we would
>>> like to remove support for the Security Manager (SM) from the JDK. By
>>> removing support, I mean that the JDK would no longer include a SM
>>> implementation. However, I don't anticipate that any SM specific APIs
>>> would be degraded *prior* to removing SM support from the JDK.
>>>
>>> Some APIs will likely be degraded as described above at the same 
>>> time we
>>> remove support for the SM from the JDK.
>>>
>>> As for when the APIs will actually be removed, this will most likely be
>>> a longer period, possibly several JDK releases. We recognize that many
>>> libraries and applications will need time to adapt to the changes and
>>> remove dependencies on the APIs. We have tools that check open source
>>> repositories for API dependencies and are able to provide us with data
>>> that helps assess the compatibility risk. However, I can't give you a
>>> timeframe for API removal yet.
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>> Sean