RFE Review : JDK-5016517 - Replace plaintext passwords by hashed passwords for out-of-the-box JMX Agent

[Harsha Wardhana B]

Hi,

Below is the updated webrev incorporating review comments from Daniel, 
Roger and Mandy. The password file will now be locked before writing.

Mandy,

> 49 # 
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/security/StandardNames.html#MessageDigest
> 50 # MD5, SHA-1 and SHA-256 are supported algorithms.
> 51 # This is an optional field. If not specified SHA-256 will be assumed.
> I would avoid the link to the documentation of a specific JDK release.
> Maybe say:
>
> Refer to "Java Security Standard Algorithm Names Specification"
> for supported algorithm.
Link to the documentation is required because the exact strings as 
specified in the documentation must be specified. "Java Security 
Standard Algorithm Names Specification" does not actually help. So I 
have not removed the link to the documentation.

-Harsha


On Thursday 12 October 2017 09:22 PM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
>
> Sure. I will send out a modified webrev soon.
>
> -Harsha
>
>
> On Thursday 12 October 2017 08:52 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/17 8:18 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 12 October 2017 08:40 PM, mandy chung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/17 1:16 AM, Harsha Wardhana B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking any better alternative to the new property name?? 
>>>>>> com.sun.management.jmxremote.password.hashes 
>>>>>> com.sun.management.jmxremote.password.asHashes     com.sun.management.jmxremote.passowrd.toHashes
>>>>
>>>> I suggest to rename 
>>>> com.sun.management.jmxremote.password.hashpasswords to 
>>>> com.sun.management.jmxremote.password.hashes.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>> We want the property to suggest an action and hence *.toHashes would 
>>> be better than *.hashes. 
>>
>> "toHashes" suffix is also good to me.
>>>>
>>>>>> 67 # If multiple entries are found for the same role name, then 
>>>>>> the last one 68 # is used.
>>>>>> If there are multiple entries of the same role, will all entries 
>>>>>> be overridden with hash value? It may be better to detect as an 
>>>>>> error when there are more than one entries of the same role?
>>>>> It would be better to log a warning. Throwing an error would seem 
>>>>> a bit extreme.
>>>>
>>>> What happen to the duplicated entries?  The clear password will 
>>>> stay?  Warning is fine.
>>> The duplicated entries will be removed. The last entry for a given 
>>> role along with its hashed password will be written into the file.
>>>
>>
>> The other alternative is to override it with its hash value and 
>> output a warning that this entry is ignored.   This will leave it for 
>> the user to remove the entries.
>>
>> Mandy
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20171027/0d2c1982/attachment.html>