commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From robert burrell donkin <>
Subject Re: [logging] tech.xml - child-first classloading not considered harmful
Date Wed, 04 May 2005 17:48:23 GMT
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 19:16 +0200, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> Parent-last! Nice, simple and so much more accurate than child-first, the 
> term everyone, including myself, uses but which is also unfortunately 
> incorrect.

actually, mike's right. (took me a while to get my head round it 8-)

> As for the lack of security of parent-last class loaders, since a class 
> loader can load classes as it wants in the order it wamts, it's hard to see 
> how the delegation order matters in the case of a malicious class loader.

i agree that delegation order does not matter in the case of a malicious
classloader. delegation order does matter in the case of a bad written
classloader faced with malicious code.

for example, consider a malicious web application deployed on an ISP's
container together with a top secret application. suppose that the
classloader used by the container is badly coded and contains bugs.

the attempted attack would be to use a SecurityManager implementation
contained in the malicious web application to bypass the security
provided by the ISP to prevent information being read from the secret

in the case of a parent-first classloader, the buggy implementation
would not be exposed since the call would be delegated to the system
classloader. in the case of a child-first classloader, a buggy
implementation may try to define SecurityManager itself and this bug

bit far fetched, i hope you agree. however, bear in mind that i never
claimed real life security advantages, just that sun felt there may be
some theoretic ones.

- robert 

> At 16:58 5/3/2005, Mike Colbert wrote:
> >This sounds reasonable to me.  It would be nice to have something definitive,
> >however.  I think it's an interesting topic and I've be following it on this
> >list.  So far, all the security risks Simon has referenced (and questioned)
> >don't seem to go much beyond hand-waving so I agree with him they are 
> >dubious.
> >A test case demonstrating some of these alleged security risks would be
> >helpful; I can't put my head around them without more detail and context.
> >Could be that these risks only affect 1% or real-world apps under a specific
> >scenario.  Even if it's 0.01% or entirely theoretical, a test case would be
> >useful to even understand what the risk really is supposed to be.
> >
> >As an aside, isn't "child-first" really a misnomer and it's more like
> >"parent-last"?  Assuming the parent is at the top of the hierarchy, 
> >child-first
> >implies (to me), that the heirarchy is walked downwardly from the parent, not
> >upwardly from the bottom.
> >
> >Mike Colbert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message