devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reza Naghibi <>
Subject Re: Separate "Console" from Java Client
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 14:48:39 GMT
You can only DOS code which is exposed on the web. I dont think calling a main() method is
a common practice in web development. If a developer chooses to do this, more power to them.
Its a choice, not a risk.

      From: Werner Keil <>
 Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 9:29 AM
 Subject: Re: Separate "Console" from Java Client
It offers just "read only" access, so data could not be destroyed directly,
but a DOS (Denial Of Service) attack by executing Ten Thousands or Millions
of UA strings would already be risk enough to most companies. This happens
in similar ways e.g. against SQL databases and unless it's a really
unprotected enterprise server, those are also done much easier against a
console interface like Oracle SQL*Plus.


On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Reza Naghibi <
> wrote:

> While I totally agree with you that org.apache.devicemap.cmd.Main can and
> should live somewhere else, it is in no way, shape, or form a security
> risk. There is no 'shell' in there.
>      From: Werner Keil <>
>  To:
>  Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:27 AM
>  Subject: Separate "Console" from Java Client
> Hi,
> As discussed mainly here in JIRA
> it seems advisable to
> separate the "Console" (Main class) from the actual Java Client.
> An optional W3C module on top of it already suggests bit of modularization,
> so a small optional module (pretty much similar to the "Console Example"
> which is the actual subject of DMAP-54) would further improve this.
> Most importantly baking a console shell into the client library poses a
> security risk because it requires little more than a batch or shell script
> to run UA queries against that and it runs in a Java SE context. All known
> Java vulnerabilities of the last months and years affect Java SE in a
> standalone/desktop environment, a proper EE container is usually well
> protected as well as code running inside it. While a JAR that exposes
> console functionality may be abused via scripts much more easily.
> Regards,
> Werner

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message