>> To be honest, we don't see a lot of security manager >> usage on the server side these days.
I'm really surprised about that. How can a app server or servlet container like JBoss Tomcat etc guarantee that System.exit does not shut down the JVM? >> I look at a lot of bug reports and >> error logs that include the command line and I don't see >> -Djava.security.manager very often. Our app server (closed-source) set it via System.setSecurityManager while bootstrapping. We have started using a SecurityManager over 11 years ago, basically to disallow invocation of System.setSecurityManager, System.setProperties System.exit, System.setIn, System.setOut Authenticator.setDefault, ProxySelector.setDefault HttpsURLConnection.setDefaultSSLSocketFactory HttpsURLConnection.setDefaultHostnameVerifier etc We also disallow System.setProperty with these keys ssl.* javax.net.ssl.* java.security.* http.proxyHost, http.proxyPort sun.util.spi.XmlPropertiesProvider and all keys which are set at the time when we register our security manager (eg: "user.dir" etc). At this moment we also set a custom java.util.Properties implementation via System.setProperties so that access via System.getProperties() is restricted too, eg: System.getProperties().clear() // removes mutable entries only System.getProperties().put("http.proxyPort", "unlucky") // will cause a security exception Of course there are still holes but in our case we just want to find erroneous code from new programmer colleague which is still a little green. Regards Reto Von: Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> An: Gregg Wonderly <gregg...@cox.net> Kopie: <jigsaw-dev@openjdk.java.net> Gesendet: 05.04.2017 19:53 Betreff: Re: SecurityManager environments On 05/04/2017 16:26, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > : > At the forefront of the failure of the SecurityManager to be an avidly used > element of Java applications, is the simple fact that the whole > infrastructure is horribly inefficient and full of locks and mutable data > which should not be locked and should instead be immutable. But, because > “assume no security manager in the picture” is the state of “the world”, the > details have not been fixed, officially. In the Jini community, Peter > Firmstone (most of the recent work), and I, have spent quite a bit of time on > understand and fixing these issues. He has tried to push the knowledge of > what needs to be done into various places, which I don’t recall at the > moment. You are right that the performance overhead when running with a security manager can be a problem. Walking the stack to get the intersection of the permissions has historically been a big part of this. If there are proposals and patches to improve the performance then security-dev is the place to bring those for discussion, maybe hotspot-dev if it gets into the stack walking in the VM. > In the end because JDK-9 breaks everything (well not quite, but nearly, since > spring and other similar libraries are broken), requiring command line > arguments, why not just finally fix Java by instituting a default > SecurityManager, instead of the command line flags, which enforces all of > these things. Why not just require the added command line argument to be the > permissions file to use? I assume the breakage you see is just a consequence of strong encapsulation. There is a lot of existing code that relies on being able to break into non-public members or access protected members from the wrong context. These are issues that should be reported to the owners of these libraries. We know it will be difficult in the interim before the maintainers release new versions that work with JDK 9. You mention Spring. There are some very smart people working on it and tracking JDK 9 closely from what I can tell. Existing versions SpringBoot fail today for a couple of reasons - one is that it is helping itself to a non-public constructor for MethodHandles.Lookup. Another is that it wants to invoke the protected ClassLoader.defineClass from the wrong context. I'm confident that they will fix this code in time as there new APIs to address these use cases. In the mean-time then there are command line options to keep existing versions working. Yes, command line options are pain but for executable JAR cases like this then there are JAR file attributes that come some relief from CLI options. As regards the security manager then it's hard to see how it fits into the discussion. To be honest, we don't see a lot of security manager usage on the server side these days. I look at a lot of bug reports and error logs that include the command line and I don't see -Djava.security.manager very often. If the overhead was zero and it was easier to identify the permissions needed by each component then maybe it would have got more popular. Another reason is that the access checks that you see in the discussions here are the access checks that the JLS and JVMS specifies. They are access checks that have to be done when you are not running with a security manager. They are also at a completely different level, meaning can bytecode in C1.m can access a member of C2. This is very different to the stack based permission checks that a security manager does. -Alan