devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reza Naghibi <reza.nagh...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Separate "Console" from Java Client
Date Thu, 08 Jan 2015 15:20:00 GMT
If someone gets shell access to a server and decides to run DeviceMap benchmarks, what would
be kind of funny :)

Regardless, again, im in total agreement. org.apache.devicemap.cmd.Main belongs somewhere
else. Its not core functionality.


      From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@gmail.com>
 To: dev@devicemap.apache.org; Reza Naghibi <reza.naghibi@yahoo.com> 
 Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 10:13 AM
 Subject: Re: Separate "Console" from Java Client
   
If someone gained shell access to a server they don't need to use the Web interface (which
normally should respond to foul-play or DOS attempts by refusing connections anyway) They
also don't even need root or sudo rights here. As Open Source files can be found publicly
available so knowing the source a simple batch/shell against the JAR would work without writing
Java code yourself.At the moment DeviceMap may not be as widely deployed as Apache poster
children like Tomcat, etc. but it's visible and the command line environment does not have
the same security managers protecting the Web container, so the JAR somewhere in most file
systems (a "webapp" folder, "tmp" or similar) could be used to script an attack. Where the
extra power (and some risk) of console access is desired by a company they can add it, but
it should be their choice, not pre-bundled under the hood.


On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Reza Naghibi <reza.naghibi@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

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 <werner.keil@gmail.com>
 To: dev@devicemap.apache.org
 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.

Werner




On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Reza Naghibi <reza.naghibi@yahoo.com.invalid
> 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 <werner.keil@gmail.com>
>  To: dev@devicemap.apache.org
>  Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:27 AM
>  Subject: Separate "Console" from Java Client
>
> Hi,
>
> As discussed mainly here in JIRA
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DMAP-54 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
>
>
>
>


  



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