<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<div><br>
<blockquote class="userQuote" itemscope="" itemtype="https://schemas.microsoft.com/QuotedText" style="border-left-width: 3px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(200, 200, 200); padding-left: 1ex; margin-left: 0.8ex; color: rgb(102, 102, 102);">
> I'd suggest cost of maintenance also appears overestimated<br>
<br>
<div>It isn’t. We have nothing to gain from removing a feature whose benefits outweigh its cost</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
The cost is very high. I've spent probably a year on the SM just for jdk.jfr module.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Erik</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> security-dev <security-dev-retn@openjdk.org> on behalf of Ron Pressler <ron.pressler@oracle.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 21, 2023 12:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Firmstone <peter.firmstone@zeus.net.au><br>
<b>Cc:</b> chap@anastigmatix.net <chap@anastigmatix.net>; security-dev@openjdk.org <security-dev@openjdk.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [External] : Re: PrivilegedAction et al and JEP411</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
> On 21 Jun 2023, at 01:36, Peter Firmstone <peter.firmstone@zeus.net.au> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> I'm just disappointed that we are being prevented from reimplementing a replacement authorization layer in Java, without any compromise from OpenJDK it's not possible. We at least need to retain some kind of privilege action mechanism. That doesn't even
have to be a privileged action, maybe it could be an annotation, that we can find using StackWalker.<br>
<br>
Maintaining that information is the very thing that makes the mechanism so expensive. Annotations wouldn’t make it any easier, because their placement would still have to be tested and maintained. No one is preventing you from maintaining that information yourself,
and you are free to inject such annotations into the JDK to your heart’s content. If it really isn't too much work then we all win — we don’t have to do it and test it, and you still get to have it.<br>
<br>
> If data protected isn't of high value, or is of low complexity, a solution of appropriate cost will be applied, in many cases that isn't SM, however removing SM will reduce security below an acceptable level for a percentage of developers and software projects,
the number may be small, but the impact will be widespread, just look at how widely deployed ElasticSearch and OpenSearch are.<br>
<br>
That is clearly untrue because even the most security sensitive applications already prefer alternatives that they find superior. We’re not sending people over to other alternatives; people first abandoned SM in favour of alternatives and *then* we figured
it’s time to remove SM when few were left using it. I believe ElasticSearch are now relying on strong encapsulation to maintain their Java-level security invariants.<br>
<br>
<br>
> Arguments against SM, that I've read on this list are based on bad practises, or the lack of tooling provided with the default implementation, this indicates a lack of experience in use, I know that Alan and Sean were involved during the early days with Li
Gong, but I'm pretty sure they don't have much experience deploying it, feel free to prove me wrong if my assumption is incorrect.<br>
<br>
While we disagree — and the “ground state”, i.e. what’s available without SM is very different today from what it was in 1997 — it isn’t our job to prove you wrong because even our most security-conscious users demand something else. If you’re absolutely certain
that you have the answer, then it is you who have to prove us wrong by making your answer popular.<br>
<br>
> I'd suggest cost of maintenance also appears overestimated<br>
<br>
It isn’t. We have nothing to gain from removing a feature whose benefits outweigh its cost, and removing a feature is itself a rather costly process. Not to mention the negative social dynamics: the majority don’t care and don’t know what they gain, while the
minority who use the feature become understandably upset. It’s unpleasant all around. So if we do it, we’re sure the cost of the feature is high.<br>
<br>
> , this is partly due to policy, I have offered to assist with maintenance, however my offer was rejected, as this is considered part of security, I am not permitted to assist, I could submit patches to this list, but I'm not sure they'll be welcomed or accepted.<br>
<br>
The resources you can contribute aren't nearly sufficient and, like I said, the problem is that maintaining the doPrivileged information is not localised but imposes a tax on *everything*.
<br>
<br>
<br>
> however I've assumed that as it's deprecated, there will be little interest in fixing them, is my assumption incorrect?<br>
<br>
Actual bugs will have to be fixed until the mechanism is fully degraded, but you are generally correct.<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Lets discuss how it should be used, and what benefits it provides and the situations when you might want to use it. I only ask that people keep an open mind and for the moment, forget all the horror stories. I realise this is academic now, and unlikely
to change anything, however documenting it here might serve some historical purpose.<br>
<br>
Okay, but we, .NET (the other platform that had a similar mechanism), and most security experts have lost faith in the approach and gained faith in newish OS-level protections that weren’t available when SM was introduced (and also offer protection for native
code as well as better protection from some DOS attacks); no new security sensitive platform seems to take that stack-based approach, either. This means that even if we’re wrong on the technical merits, such a feature is so far from the mainstream practice
that it has no room in a mainstream language. If some day it becomes mainstream again things may change.<br>
<br>
Still, here’s one thing about the technical aspect: “Trusted” does not mean “free of vulnerabilities” but "assumed to not be malicious.” Libraries can and do have vulnerabilities, but I think that strong encapsulation is much more effective in controlling their
blast radius, and it has significant non-security-related benefits, too (not that most developers are rushing to apply strong encapsulation to their own code, but at least we’re able to encapsulate the JDK itself). By “effective” I don’t mean “powerful”, but
rather “provides more value on average when all aspects are considered”. With strong encapsulation you only need to check that a particular code unit that performs an operation on behalf of a user (authorised at the application operation level) doesn’t do
anything problematic. Other units cannot break your unit’s invariants, so only local reasoning is required (true, the size of the unit is not as small as could be afforded by a stack-based approach, but it is still local and contained). If you’re interested
in gadget attacks, I suggest you think about how many of them can be prevented by strong encapsulation alone and how many could be prevented by a combination of strong encapsulation and OS-level protections that apply to the entire process (you can throw in
serialization filters, too). In other words, don’t think just about what SM could do for you, but also think about what the more popular approaches do for you, too (taking your own advice of considering how they can be best applied, not misapplied) and then
consider how much effort should be put to close the *delta* between the two.<br>
<br>
Code signing is a completely separate topic; expect some developments in that area.<br>
<br>
— Ron</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>