11:03 p.m.
[ http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBREM-920?page=comments#action_12409701 ]
Ron Sigal commented on JBREM-920:
---------------------------------
Four policy files have been created in the src/etc directory:
* remoting.security.policy.core: these are the permissions needed to run all of the
Remoting facilities, i.e., the code in src/main
* remoting.security.policy.tests: these are the permissions needed to run most of the
Remoting test suite, i.e., the code in src/tests, with the following exceptions
* remoting.security.policy.tests.marshal: these are the permissions used to run ant
target "tests.marshal"
* remoting.security.policy.tests.minimal: these are the permissions used to run ant
target "tests.functional.main.security" and
"tests.functional.main.http.security"
Many of the tests require more permissions than the typical application code, e.g., the
ability to access a classloader, so it is possible that giving the test suite the
necessary permissions could result in failing to uncover a permission that should have
been granted to the core Remoting code. Therefore, the
"tests.functional.main.http.security" target was created, which runs a single
test for each of the Remoting transports. These particular tests run with a very small
set of permissions.
Create build.xml target to run test suite with a Security Manager
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Key: JBREM-920
URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBREM-920
Project: JBoss Remoting
Issue Type: Task
Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
Reporter: Ron Sigal
Assigned To: David Lloyd
Fix For: 2.4.0.GA
From Anil Saldana:
Presuming that you have a test suite and either use ANT or Maven, I
recommend an extra target to run the test suite in a Java Security
Manager with minimal permissions. So for ANT, you will have an
additional target. For MAVEN, you can use a profile.
The idea is that you have a Java Security Policy file in which you
provide unlimited permission to third party libraries and minimal
permissions to your own code. This exercise is to detect critical
sections of code that need special privileges and get into privileged
blocks. If you have an extra target for the security manager and your
test runs happen on hudson, you can detect issues with security manager
as new code gets added.
Please do not have one test that does System.setSecurityManager but run
your entire test suite via the security manager
(-Djava.security.manager -Djava.security.policy=somefile).
Example: (Take a look by clicking "Configure" on the LHS)
http://hudson.qa.jboss.com/hudson/job/JBossSX_SecurityManager/
http://anonsvn.jboss.org/repos/jbossas/projects/security/security-jboss-s...
Now if your head is spinning or you do not care about security or do not
have the time to do it, please tell me. I can engage myself, someone
from JBoss Security Team or the QA person handling your project to add a
JIRA issue (and make the build.xml/pom.xml changes for your project).
Why is this important?
* Because many customers run JBAS in a security manager and we need to
detect issues in our own code. Also during a recent integration work
with JBoss Messaging for the SOA platform, there was one issue with
remoting (JBREM-811) that gave some head ache to Clebert and Ron (who is
still reeling). It took some cycles from me also.
* We need to have tests running in a security manager on an ongoing basis.
I understand that there are resource issues in various projects. But
that does not discount the work that we need to do before we ship JBAS. ;)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://jira.jboss.com/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira