The target name is the name of a security configuration parameter (see below).
Currently the SecurityPermission object is used to guard access
to the Policy, Security, Provider, Signer, and Identity
objects.
The following table lists all the possible SecurityPermission target names,
and for each provides a description of what the permission allows
and a discussion of the risks of granting code the permission.
| Permission Target Name |
What the Permission Allows |
Risks of Allowing this Permission |
| createAccessControlContext |
Creation of an AccessControlContext |
This allows someone to instantiate an AccessControlContext
with a DomainCombiner. Since DomainCombiners are given
a reference to the ProtectionDomains currently on the stack,
this could potentially lead to a privacy leak if the DomainCombiner
is malicious. |
| getDomainCombiner |
Retrieval of an AccessControlContext's DomainCombiner |
This allows someone to retrieve an AccessControlContext's
DomainCombiner. Since DomainCombiners may contain
sensitive information, this could potentially lead to a privacy leak. |
| getPolicy |
Retrieval of the system-wide security policy (specifically, of the
currently-installed Policy object) |
This allows someone to query the policy via the
getPermissions call,
which discloses which permissions would be granted to a given CodeSource.
While revealing the policy does not compromise the security of
the system, it does provide malicious code with additional information
which it may use to better aim an attack. It is wise
not to divulge more information than necessary. |
| setPolicy |
Setting of the system-wide security policy (specifically,
the Policy object) |
Granting this permission is extremely dangerous, as malicious
code may grant itself all the necessary permissions it needs
to successfully mount an attack on the system. |
| getProperty.{key} |
Retrieval of the security property with the specified key |
Depending on the particular key for which access has
been granted, the code may have access to the list of security
providers, as well as the location of the system-wide and user
security policies. while revealing this information does not
compromise the security of the system, it does provide malicious
code with additional information which it may use to better aim
an attack.
|
| setProperty.{key} |
Setting of the security property with the specified key |
This could include setting a security provider or defining
the location of the the system-wide security policy. Malicious
code that has permission to set a new security provider may
set a rogue provider that steals confidential information such
as cryptographic private keys. In addition, malicious code with
permission to set the location of the system-wide security policy
may point it to a security policy that grants the attacker
all the necessary permissions it requires to successfully mount
an attack on the system.
|
| insertProvider.{provider name} |
Addition of a new provider, with the specified name |
This would allow somebody to introduce a possibly
malicious provider (e.g., one that discloses the private keys passed
to it) as the highest-priority provider. This would be possible
because the Security object (which manages the installed providers)
currently does not check the integrity or authenticity of a provider
before attaching it. |
| removeProvider.{provider name} |
Removal of the specified provider |
This may change the behavior or disable execution of other
parts of the program. If a provider subsequently requested by the
program has been removed, execution may fail. Also, if the removed
provider is not explicitly requested by the rest of the program, but
it would normally be the provider chosen when a cryptography service
is requested (due to its previous order in the list of providers),
a different provider will be chosen instead, or no suitable provider
will be found, thereby resulting in program failure. |
| setSystemScope |
Setting of the system identity scope |
This would allow an attacker to configure the system identity scope with
certificates that should not be trusted, thereby granting applet or
application code signed with those certificates privileges that
would have been denied by the system's original identity scope |
| setIdentityPublicKey |
Setting of the public key for an Identity |
If the identity is marked as "trusted", this allows an attacker to
introduce a different public key (e.g., its own) that is not trusted
by the system's identity scope, thereby granting applet or
application code signed with that public key privileges that
would have been denied otherwise. |
| setIdentityInfo |
Setting of a general information string for an Identity |
This allows attackers to set the general description for
an identity. This may trick applications into using a different
identity than intended or may prevent applications from finding a
particular identity. |
| addIdentityCertificate |
Addition of a certificate for an Identity |
This allows attackers to set a certificate for
an identity's public key. This is dangerous because it affects
the trust relationship across the system. This public key suddenly
becomes trusted to a wider audience than it otherwise would be. |
| removeIdentityCertificate |
Removal of a certificate for an Identity |
This allows attackers to remove a certificate for
an identity's public key. This is dangerous because it affects
the trust relationship across the system. This public key suddenly
becomes considered less trustworthy than it otherwise would be. |
| printIdentity |
Viewing the name of a principal
and optionally the scope in which it is used, and whether
or not it is considered "trusted" in that scope |
The scope that is printed out may be a filename, in which case
it may convey local system information. For example, here's a sample
printout of an identity named "carol", who is
marked not trusted in the user's identity database:
carol[/home/luehe/identitydb.obj][not trusted] |
| clearProviderProperties.{provider name} |
"Clearing" of a Provider so that it no longer contains the properties
used to look up services implemented by the provider |
This disables the lookup of services implemented by the provider.
This may thus change the behavior or disable execution of other
parts of the program that would normally utilize the Provider, as
described under the "removeProvider.{provider name}" permission. |
| putProviderProperty.{provider name} |
Setting of properties for the specified Provider |
The provider properties each specify the name and location
of a particular service implemented by the provider. By granting
this permission, you let code replace the service specification
with another one, thereby specifying a different implementation. |
| removeProviderProperty.{provider name} |
Removal of properties from the specified Provider |
This disables the lookup of services implemented by the
provider. They are no longer accessible due to removal of the properties
specifying their names and locations. This
may change the behavior or disable execution of other
parts of the program that would normally utilize the Provider, as
described under the "removeProvider.{provider name}" permission. |
| getSignerPrivateKey |
Retrieval of a Signer's private key |
It is very dangerous to allow access to a private key; private
keys are supposed to be kept secret. Otherwise, code can use the
private key to sign various files and claim the signature came from
the Signer. |
| setSignerKeyPair |
Setting of the key pair (public key and private key) for a Signer |
This would allow an attacker to replace somebody else's (the "target's")
keypair with a possibly weaker keypair (e.g., a keypair of a smaller
keysize). This also would allow the attacker to listen in on encrypted
communication between the target and its peers. The target's peers
might wrap an encryption session key under the target's "new" public
key, which would allow the attacker (who possesses the corresponding
private key) to unwrap the session key and decipher the communication
data encrypted under that session key. |
