...
Java's object cloning mechanism allows an attacker to manufacture new instances of a class by copying the memory images of existing objects rather than by executing the class's constructor. Often, this is an unacceptable way of creating new objects. An attacker can misuse the clone feature to manufacture multiple instances of a singleton class, create thread-safety issues by subclassing and cloning the subclass, bypass security checks within the constructor, and violate the invariants of critical data.
...
This noncompliant code example defines class SensitiveClass
, which contains a character array used to hold a file name, along with a Boolean
shared variable, initialized to false. This data is not meant to be copied; consequently, SensitiveClass
lacks a copy constructor.
...
This class can be exploited by a malicious class, shown in the following noncompliant code example, that subclasses the nonfinal SensitiveClass
and provides a public clone()
method:
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
class MaliciousSubclass extends SensitiveClass implements Cloneable { protected MaliciousSubclass(String filename) { super(filename); } @Override public MaliciousSubclass clone() { // Well-behaved clone() method MaliciousSubclass s = null; try { s = (MaliciousSubclass)super.clone(); } catch(Exception e) { System.out.println("not cloneable"); } return s; } public static void main(String[] args) { MaliciousSubclass ms1 = new MaliciousSubclass("file.txt"); MaliciousSubclass ms2 = ms1.clone(); // Creates a copy String s = ms1.get(); // Returns filename System.out.println(s); // Filename is "file.txt" ms2.replace(); // Replaces all characters with 'x' // Both ms1.get() and ms2.get() will subsequently return filename = 'xxxxxxxx' ms1.printFilename(); // Filename becomes 'xxxxxxxx' ms2.printFilename(); // Filename becomes 'xxxxxxxx' } } |
The malicious class creates an instance ms1
and produces a second instance ms2
by cloning the first. It then obtains a new filename
by invoking the get()
method on the first instance. At this point, the shared
flag is set to true. Because the second instance ms2
does not have its shared flag set to true, it is possible to alter the first instance ms1
using the replace()
method. This approach obviates any security efforts and severely violates the class's invariants.
Compliant Solution (Final Class)
The easiest way to prevent malicious subclasses is to declare SensitiveClass
to be final.
Code Block | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
final class SensitiveClass { // ... } |
...
This class fails to prevent malicious subclasses but does protect the data in SensitiveClass
. Its methods are protected by being declared final. For more information on handling malicious subclasses, see OBJ04-J. Provide mutable classes with copy functionality to safely allow passing instances to untrusted code.
...
Failure to make sensitive classes noncopyable can permit violations of class invariants and provide malicious subclasses with the opportunity to exploit the code to create new instances of objects, even in the presence of the default security manager (in the absence of custom security checks).
Rule | Severity | Likelihood | Remediation Cost | Priority | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
OBJ07-J | Medium | Probable | Medium | P8 | L2 |
Bibliography
Automated Detection
Tool | Version | Checker | Description | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CodeSonar |
| JAVA.CLASS.CLONE.CNC | clone Non-cloneable (Java) | ||||||
Parasoft Jtest |
| CERT.OBJ07.MCNC | Make your classes noncloneable |
Related Guidelines
"Twelve Rules for Developing More Secure Java Code"
CWE-498, Cloneable Class Containing Sensitive Information |
Bibliography
"Twelve Rules for Developing More Secure Java Code" | |
Section 10.6, "Java" |
...
...