Page History

Java classes and methods may have invariants. An invariant is a property that is assumed to be true at certain points during program execution but is not formally specified as true. Invariants may be used in assert statements or may be informally specified in comments.

Method invariants can include Many methods offer invariants, which are guarantees made about what the method can do, and what state the object must be in requirements about the state of the object when the method is invoked, or guarantees about the state of the object when the method completes. For instance, the % operator, which computes the remainder of a number provides the invariant that

0 <= abs(a % b) <= abs(b), for all integers a, b where b != 0

example, a method of a Date class might guarantee that 1 <= day_of_month <= 31 when the method exits.  

Class invariants Many classes also offer invariants, which are guarantees made about the state of their objects' fields upon the completion of any of all their methods. For instanceexample, classes whose member fields may not be modified once they have assumed a value are called immutable classes. An important consequence of immutability is that the invariants of instances of these classes are preserved throughout their lifetimes.

A fundamental principle of object-oriented design is that when a subclass extends a superclass, the subclass's methods should preserve the invariants provided by the superclass. Unfortunately, attackers are not constrained by design principles. They can construct malicious classes which extend benign classes and provide methods that violate the invariants of the benign classes.

For instance, if an immutable class is not declared final, it might be possible to write a malicious subclass capable of changing the state of the immutable object. It would definitely be possible for the malicious subclass to impersonate the immutable object without actually being immutable. Such malicious subclasses would be capable of violating Similarly, classes can rely on invariants to properly implement their public interfaces. These invariants might relate to the state of member fields or the implementation of member methods. Generally, classes can rely on encapsulation to help maintain these invariants, for example, by making member fields private. However, encapsulation can be incompatible with extensibility. For example, a class designer might want a method to be publicly accessible yet rely on the particulars of its implementation when using it in another method within the class. In this case, overriding the method in a subclass can break the internal invariants of the class.  Extensibility consequently carries with it two significant risks: a subclass can fail to satisfy the invariants promised to clients by its superclass, and it can break the internal invariants on which the superclass relies. For example, an immutable class that lacks the final qualifier can be extended by a malicious subclass that can modify the state of the supposedly immutable object. Furthermore, a malicious subclass object can impersonate the immutable object while actually remaining mutable. Such malicious subclasses can violate program invariants on which clients depend, thus consequently introducing security vulnerabilities.

Therefore, classes with invariants that other code depends on ought to be declared final, thereby preventing malicious subclasses from subverting their invariants. Furthermore, immutable classes must be declared final.

Note that the same can be said for a benign subclass that mistakenly supports mutability. These risks relate to both benign and malicious development.

To mitigate these risks, by default classes should be declared final unless there is a definite need for the class to be extensible. In that case, developers must carefully design the class with extensibility in mind. As a specific instance of this recommendation, classes that are designed to be treated as immutable either must be declared final or must have all of their member methods and fields declared final or private.

In systems where code can come from mixed protection domains, some superclasses might want to Some classes (hereafter known as superclasses) must permit extension by trusted subclasses while simultaneously preventing extension by untrusted code. Therefore, declaring Declaring such superclasses to be final is not an option, infeasible because it would prevent the required extension by trusted code. Such problems require careful design for inheritance. Wiki MarkupConsider two classes belonging to different protection domains; one is malicious, and estends the other, which is trusted. Consider an object of the malicious subclass with a fully qualified invocation of a method defined by the trusted superclass, and not overridden by the malicious class. In this case, the trusted superclass's permissions are examined to execute the method, with the consequence that the malicious object gets the method invoked inside the protection domain of the trusted superclass. \[[Gong 2003|AA. Bibliography#Gong 03]\].One commonly suggested solution One commonly suggested approach is to place code at each point where the superclass can be instantiated to ensure check that the instance being created has the same type as the superclass. When the type is found to be that of a subclass instead of the superclass's type, the checking code performs a security manager check to ensure that malicious classes cannot misuse the superclass. This approach is insecure because it allows a malicious class to add a finalizer and obtain a partially-initialized instance of the superclass. This attack is detailed in guideline OBJ04-J. Do not allow access to partially initialized objects.

For non-final classes, the method that performs the security manager check must be invoked as an argument to a private constructor to ensure that the security check is performed before any superclass's constructor can exit.

When the parent class has members that are declared private or are otherwise inaccessible to the attacker, the attacker must use reflection to exploit those members of the parent class. Declaring the parent class or its methods final prohibits this level of access.

A method which receives an untrusted, non-final input argument must beware that other methods or threads might modify the input object. Some methods try to prevent modification by making a local copy of the input object. This does not provide sufficient protection, as a shallow copy of an object may still allow it to point to mutable sub-objects, which may still be modified by other methods or threads. Some methods go farther and perform a deep copy of the input object. This mitigates the problem of modifiable sub-objects, but the method might still be passed a mutable object that estends the input object class.class being instantiated is either the superclass itself or a trustworthy subclass. However, this approach is brittle and is safe only in Java SE 6 or higher (see OBJ11-J. Be wary of letting constructors throw exceptions for a full discussion of the issues involved).

Noncompliant Code Example (BigInteger)

This noncompliant code example uses the immutable The java.math.BigInteger class .

class BigInteger {
  // ...
}

Wiki MarkupThe class is non-final and consequently extendable. This can be a problem when operating on an instance of {{BigInteger}} that was obtained from an untrusted client. For example, a malicious client may construct a spurious mutable {{BigInteger}} instance by overriding {{BigInteger}}'s member functions \[[Bloch 2008|AA. Bibliography#Bloch 08]\]is itself an example of noncompliant code. It is nonfinal and consequently extendable, which can be a problem when operating on an instance of BigInteger that was obtained from an untrusted client. For example, a malicious client could construct a spurious mutable BigInteger instance by overriding BigInteger's member functions [Bloch 2008].

The following code example demonstrates such an attack.:

BigInteger msg = new BigInteger("123");
msg = msg.modPow(exp, m);  // Always returns 1  

// Malicious subclassing of java.math.BigInteger
class BigInteger extends java.math.BigInteger {
  private intbyte[] valueba;

  public BigInteger(String str) {
    super(str);
    valueba = Integer.parseInt( str) (new java.math.BigInteger(str)).toByteArray();
  }

  public setValueBigInteger(intbyte[] valueba) {
    super(ba);
    this.valueba = valueba;
  }

  public @Override public java.math.BigInteger modPow(java.math.BigInteger exponent, java.math.BigInteger mvoid setValue(byte[] ba) {
    this.valueba = ((int) (Math.pow( this.value, exponent))) % m; ba;
  }

  @Override public byte[] toByteArray() {
    return thisba;
   }
}

This Unlike the benign BigInteger class, this malicious BigInteger class is clearly mutable , thanks to because of the setValue() method. Furthermore, the modPow() method is subject to precision loss (see NUM00-J. Ensure that integer operations do not result in overflow, NUM11-J. Check floating point inputs for exceptional values, NUM15-J. Ensure conversions of numeric types to narrower types do not result in lost or misinterpreted data and NUM17-J. Beware of precision loss when converting primitive integers to floating-point for more info). Any code that receives an object of this class, and assumes it is imutable will have unexpected behavior. (The BigInteger.modPow() method Any code that receives an object of this class and assumes that the object is immutable will behave unexpectedly, as shown by the following code:

BigInteger bi = new BigInteger("123");

bi.setValue((new BigInteger("246")).toByteArray());

System.out.println(new BigInteger(bi.toByteArray()));  

This code prints: "246", which shows that the value of the supposedly immutable BigInteger bi has been changed.

OBJ01-J. Limit accessibility of fields points out that invariants cannot be enforced for mutable objects. TSM03-J. Do not publish partially initialized objects describes object construction and visibility issues specific to mutable objects, and CON50-J. Do not assume that declaring a reference volatile guarantees safe publication of the members of the referenced object and CON52-J. Document thread-safety and use annotations where applicable discuss some concurrency issues associated with mutable objects.

Violation of this recommendation can be mitigated by treating objects from untrusted sources as potentially malicious subclasses, as directed by OBJ06-J. Defensively copy mutable inputs and mutable internal components. Complying with that rule protects you from the consequences of violating this recommendation.

This example is particularly important because the BigInteger type has several useful cryptographic applications.)

Noncompliant Code Example (Security Manager)

Wiki MarkupThis noncompliant code example installs proposes adding a security manager check in the constructor of the {{BigInteger}} the java.math.BigInteger class. The security manager denies access when it detects that a subclass without the requisite permissions is attempting to instantiate the superclass \[ [SCG 2007|AA. Bibliography#SCG 07]\]. It also compares class types, in compliance with [OBJ06-J. Compare classes and not class names]2009]. It also compares class types, in compliance with OBJ09-J. Compare classes and not class names. Note that this check does not prevent malicious extensions of BigInteger; it instead prevents the creation of BigInteger objects from untrusted code, which also prevents creation of objects of malicious extensions of BigInteger.

package java.math;
 
// ...
 
public class BigInteger {
  public BigInteger(String str) {
    Class c = getClass();securityManagerCheck(); 

    // java.lang.Object.getClass(), which is final
    // Confirm class type
    if (c != NonFinal.class) {
      }

  // Check the permission needed to subclass NonFinalBigInteger
      securityManagerCheck(); // throws a security exception if not allowed
  private void securityManagerCheck() }{
    // ...   
  }
}

Unfortunately, throwing an exception from the constructor of a non-final nonfinal class is insecure because it allows a finalizer attack (see guideline OBJ04 OBJ11-J. Be wary of letting constructors throw exceptions). Furthermore, since BigInteger is Serializable, an attacker could bypass the security check by deserializing a malicious instance of BigInteger. For more information on proper deserialization, see the rule SER04-J. Do not allow access to partially initialized objects)serialization and deserialization to bypass the security manager.

Compliant Solution (

...

Final)

This compliant solution prevents creation of malicious subclasses by declaring the immutable java.math.BigInteger class to be final. Although this solution would be appropriate for locally maintained code, it cannot be used in the case of java.math.BigInteger because it would require changing the Java SE API, which has already been published and must remain compatible with previous versions.

final class BigInteger {
  package java.math;

// ...
}

Compliant Solution (Class Sanitization)

When instances of non-final classes are obtained from untrusted sources, such instances should be used with care, because their method calls might be overridden by malicious methods. This potential vulnerability can be mitigated by making defensive copies of the acquired instances prior to use. This compliant solution demonstrates this technique for a {{BigInteger}} argument \[[Bloch 2008|AA. Bibliography#Bloch 08]\].

public static BigInteger safeInstance(BigInteger val) final class BigInteger {
  // create a defensive copy if it is not java.math.BigInteger
  if (val.getClass() != java.math.BigInteger.class)  
    return new BigInteger(val.toByteArray());
  
  return val;
}

The guidelines FIO00-J. Defensively copy mutable inputs and mutable internal components and OBJ10-J. Provide mutable classes with copy functionality to allow passing instances to untrusted code safely discuss defensive copying in great depth.

Compliant Solution (Java SE 6

...

,

...

Public and

...

Private Constructors)

This compliant solution invokes a security manager check as a side - effect of computing the boolean Boolean value passed to a private constructor (as seen in guideline OBJ04OBJ11-J. Do not allow access to partially initialized objectsBe wary of letting constructors throw exceptions). The rules for order of evaluation require that the security manager check must execute before invocation of the private constructor. Consequently, the security manager check also executes before invocation of any superclass's constructor. Note that the security manager check is made without regard to whether the object under construction has the type of the parent class or the type of a subclass (whether trusted or not). unmigrated-wiki-markup

This solution thwarts prevents the finalizer attack. It is specific to Java SE 6 and onwards, where a finalizer is prevented from being executed when an exception is thrown before the {{attack; it applies to Java SE 6 and later versions, where throwing an exception before the java.lang.Object}} constructor exits \[exits prevents execution of finalizers [SCG 2009|AA. Bibliography#SCG 09]\].

package java.math;

// ...

public class BigInteger {
  public BigInteger(String str) {
    this( str, check( this.getClass())); // throws a security exception if not allowed
  }
  
  private BigInteger(String str, boolean securityManagerCheckdummy) {
    // regularRegular construction goes here
  }

  private static boolean check(Class c) {
    // Confirm class type
    if (c != BigInteger.class) {
      // Check the permission needed to subclass BigInteger
      securityManagerCheck(); // throws a security exception if not allowed
    }

    return true;
  }
}

Risk Assessment

Permitting a non-final class or method to be inherited without checking the class instance allows a malicious subclass to misuse the privileges of the class.

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this guideline on the CERT website

Related Vulnerabilities

Search for vulnerabilities resulting from the violation of this guideline on the CERT website.

Bibliography

\[[API 2006|AA. Bibliography#API 06]\] Class BigInteger
\[[Bloch 2008|AA. Bibliography#Bloch 08]\] Item 1: "Consider static factory methods instead of constructors"
\[[Gong 2003|AA. Bibliography#Gong 03]\] Chapter 6: "Enforcing Security Policy"
\[[Lai 2008|AA. Bibliography#Lai 08]\]
\[[McGraw 2000|AA. Bibliography#McGraw 00]\] Chapter Seven Rule 3: "Make Everything Final, Unless There's a Good Reason Not To"\[[SCG 2007|AA. Bibliography#SCG 07]\] Guideline 1-2 "Limit the extensibility of classes and methods"
\[[SCG 2009|AA. Bibliography#SCG 09]\]

Automated Detection

This recommendation is not checkable because it depends on factors that are unspecified in the code, including the invariants upon which the code relies and the necessity of designating a class as extensible, among others. However, simple statistical methods might be useful to find codebases that violate this recommendation by checking whether a given codebase contains a higher-than-average number of classes left nonfinal.

Related Guidelines

Bibliography

...

Image Added Image Added Image AddedOBJ04-J. Do not allow access to partially initialized objects      04. Object Orientation (OBJ)      OBJ06-J. Compare classes and not class names