In Java SE 6 and later, privileged code must either use the
AccessController mechanism or be signed by an owner (or provider) whom the user trusts. Attackers could link privileged code with malicious code if the privileged code directly or indirectly invokes code from another package. Trusted JAR files often contain code that requires no elevated privileges itself but that depends on privileged code; such code is known as security-sensitive code. If an attacker can link security-sensitive code with malicious code, he or she can indirectly cause incorrect behavior. This exploit is called a mix-and-match attack.
Normally, execution of untrusted code causes loss of privileges; the Java security model rescinds privileges when a trusted method invokes an untrusted one. When trusted code calls untrusted code that attempts to perform some action requiring permissions withheld by the security policy, the Java security model disallows that action. However, privileged code may use a class that exists in an untrusted container and performs only unprivileged operations. If the attacker were to replace the class in the untrusted container with a malicious class, the trusted code might receive incorrect results and misbehave at the discretion of the malicious code.
According to the Java SE Documentation, "Extension Mechanism Architecture" [EMA 2014]:
A package sealed within a JAR specifies that all classes defined in that package must originate from the same JAR. Otherwise, a
Sealing a JAR file automatically enforces the requirement of keeping privileged code together. In addition, it is important to minimize the accessibility of classes and their members.
Noncompliant Code Example (Privileged Code)
This noncompliant code example includes a
doPrivileged() block and calls a method defined in a class in a different, untrusted JAR file:
An attacker can provide an implementation of class
RetValue so that the privileged code uses an incorrect return value. Even though class
MixMatch consists only of trusted, signed code, an attacker can still cause this behavior by maliciously deploying a valid signed JAR file containing the untrusted
This example almost violates SEC01-J. Do not allow tainted variables in privileged blocks but does not do so. It instead allows potentially tainted code in its
doPrivileged() block, which is a similar issue.
Noncompliant Code Example (Security-Sensitive Code)
This noncompliant code example improves on the previous example by moving the use of the
RetValue class outside the
RetValue class is used only outside the
doPrivileged() block, the behavior of
RetValue.getValue() affects the behavior of security-sensitive code that operates on the file opened within the
doPrivileged() block. Consequently, an attacker can still exploit the security-sensitive code with a malicious implementation of
This compliant solution combines all security-sensitive code into the same package and the same JAR file. It also reduces the accessibility of the
getValue() method to package-private. Sealing the package is necessary to prevent attackers from inserting any rogue classes.
To seal a package, use the
sealed attribute in the JAR file's manifest file header, as follows:
ENV01-J-EX0: Independent groups of privileged code and associated security-sensitive code (a "group" hereafter) may be placed in separate sealed packages and even in separate JAR files, subject to the following enabling conditions:
- The code in any one of these independent groups must lack any dynamic or static dependency on any of the code in any of the other groups. This means that code from one such group cannot invoke code from any of the others, whether directly or transitively.
- All code from any single group is contained within one or more sealed packages.
- All code from any single group is contained within a single signed JAR file.
Failure to place all privileged code together in one package and seal the package can lead to mix-and-match attacks.
Detecting code that should be considered privileged or sensitive requires programmer assistance. Given identified privileged code as a starting point, automated tools could compute the closure of all code that can be invoked from that point. Such a tool could plausibly determine whether all code in that closure exists within a single package. A further check of whether the package is sealed is feasible.
Potential LDAP Poisoning (Java)
Android Implementation Details
java.security.AccessController exists on Android for compatibility purposes only, and it should not be used.
Extension Mechanism Architecture, "Optional Package Sealing"
Rule 7, If you must sign your code, put it all in one archive file