commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gary Gregory (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (POOL-352) CallStackUtils mishandles security manager check
Date Wed, 17 Oct 2018 02:58:00 GMT


Gary Gregory commented on POOL-352:

Patches welcome! 

> CallStackUtils mishandles security manager check
> ------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: POOL-352
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Pool
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Volker Kleinschmidt
>            Priority: Major
> CallStackUtils determines at initialization time whether it is allowed to create a security
manager, then sticks that info into a static variable and never checks it again, relying on
this check to later try to create a SecurityManager for a SecurityManagerCallStack. This is
doubly wrong:
> a) If the code is running in a privileged context at init time, it determines that it
can create a security manager, and then later naively assumes that henceforth all code is
privileged and also can create a security manager. Of course this is not true, otherwise one
would not need a security manager in the first place! This info can never be kept in a static
variable, it's extremely context-dependent. So this leads to AccessControlException from invoking
> b) The permission to create a security manager must never be granted to any code, unless
that code has AllPermission in the first place, i.e. is already fully privileged. This is
because this permission allows circumventing the security manager completely (simply create
one that lets all checks pass). Therefore even just checking whether you're allowed to create
a secmgr is naive - if a secmgr is installed at all you should assume that you're NOT privileged
enough to do this, simply because for sure some code that calls your code will not be privileged

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message