[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5676?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Lukasz Lenart updated WW-5676:
------------------------------
    Description: 
Split out of [WW-5674|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5674], where the 
question was deliberately deferred so that ticket could remain a pure 
no-behaviour-change optimisation.

h2. Current behaviour

{{SecurityMemberAccess.toPackageName(Class)}} returns the empty string for 
arrays, primitives and {{void}}:

{code:java}
public static String toPackageName(Class clazz) {
    if (clazz.isArray() || clazz.isPrimitive()) {
        return "";
    }
    return clazz.getPackageName();
}
{code}

(The real signature is generic; generics are omitted here because the issue 
tracker mangles them.)

The {{isArray() || isPrimitive()}} guard exists specifically to preserve this. 
It reproduces the pre-WW-5674 implementation, which used {{clazz.getPackage()}} 
— and {{getPackage()}} returns null for exactly those three categories.

{{Class.getPackageName()}} resolves them differently: arrays resolve to the 
element type's package and primitives to {{java.lang}}. Verified on Temurin 17:

|| class || current {{toPackageName}} || {{getPackageName()}} ||
| {{String[]}} | {{""}} | {{java.lang}} |
| {{java.io.File[]}} | {{""}} | {{java.io}} |
| {{int}}, {{int[]}}, {{void}} | {{""}} | {{java.lang}} |
| {{com.app.MyThing[]}} | {{""}} | {{com.app}} |

h2. Why this is not a simple hardening fix

{{toPackageName}} feeds two checks that the change would push in _opposite_ 
directions.

_The exclusion path would tighten._ {{isExcludedPackageNames}} would start 
matching arrays. A {{java.io.File[]}} currently has package {{""}} and escapes 
{{struts.excludedPackageNames}} entirely, even though {{java.io}} is excluded 
by default. That looks like a genuine defensive gap.

_The allowlist path would loosen._ {{isClassAllowlisted}} would start matching 
arrays too. An application that sets 
{{struts.allowlist.packageNames=com.app.actions}} does _not_ today thereby 
allowlist {{com.app.actions.MyThing[]}}, because the array's package is {{""}}; 
arrays must be listed explicitly in {{struts.allowlist.classes}}. After the 
change they would be allowlisted implicitly.

The allowlist is the primary OGNL defence in Struts 7.x and is enabled by 
default ({{struts.allowlist.enable=true}}), so making it more permissive needs 
its own security reasoning rather than riding along with a performance change.

h2. What needs deciding
* Whether the exclusion-path gap (arrays of excluded-package types escaping 
exclusion) is exploitable in practice. Note that for an array target, 
{{member.getDeclaringClass()}} is usually {{java.lang.Object}}, which is 
already in {{struts.excludedClasses}}; {{clone()}} is the notable exception, as 
its declaring class is the array type itself.
* Whether the allowlist loosening is acceptable, or whether the two paths 
should use different package semantics.
* Whether {{void}} and primitives should be treated separately from arrays — 
they can never be an OGNL target in the same way.
* Whether any change here needs a migration-guide note, since it can break 
applications that rely on the current behaviour in either direction.

h2. Constraints

Any change must keep {{checkDefaultPackageAccess}} consistent — it 
independently inspects {{getPackage()}} and would otherwise disagree with 
{{toPackageName}} about what "the default package" means. See WW-5677, which 
proposes routing that method through {{toPackageName}}.

Requires equivalence tests in {{SecurityMemberAccessPackageMatchingTest}}, 
which already pins the current array/primitive behaviour in 
{{arraysAndPrimitivesResolveToTheEmptyPackage}} and 
{{toPackageNameMatchesLegacyAcrossClassShapes}}. Those tests will need updating 
deliberately, not incidentally.

  was:
Split out of [WW-5674|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5674], where the 
question was deliberately deferred so that ticket could remain a pure 
no-behaviour-change optimisation.

h2. Current behaviour

{{SecurityMemberAccess.toPackageName(Class)}} returns the empty string for 
arrays, primitives and {{void}}:

{code:java}
public static String toPackageName(Class[?] clazz) {
    if (clazz.isArray() || clazz.isPrimitive()) {
        return "";
    }
    return clazz.getPackageName();
}
{code}

The {{isArray() || isPrimitive()}} guard exists specifically to preserve this. 
It reproduces the pre-WW-5674 implementation, which used {{clazz.getPackage()}} 
— and {{getPackage()}} returns null for exactly those three categories.

{{Class.getPackageName()}} resolves them differently: arrays resolve to the 
element type's package and primitives to {{java.lang}}. Verified on Temurin 17:

|| class || current {{toPackageName}} || {{getPackageName()}} ||
| {{String[]}} | {{""}} | {{java.lang}} |
| {{java.io.File[]}} | {{""}} | {{java.io}} |
| {{int}}, {{int[]}}, {{void}} | {{""}} | {{java.lang}} |
| {{com.app.MyThing[]}} | {{""}} | {{com.app}} |

h2. Why this is not a simple hardening fix

{{toPackageName}} feeds two checks that the change would push in _opposite_ 
directions.

_The exclusion path would tighten._ {{isExcludedPackageNames}} would start 
matching arrays. A {{java.io.File[]}} currently has package {{""}} and escapes 
{{struts.excludedPackageNames}} entirely, even though {{java.io}} is excluded 
by default. That looks like a genuine defensive gap.

_The allowlist path would loosen._ {{isClassAllowlisted}} would start matching 
arrays too. An application that sets 
{{struts.allowlist.packageNames=com.app.actions}} does _not_ today thereby 
allowlist {{com.app.actions.MyThing[]}}, because the array's package is {{""}}; 
arrays must be listed explicitly in {{struts.allowlist.classes}}. After the 
change they would be allowlisted implicitly.

The allowlist is the primary OGNL defence in Struts 7.x and is enabled by 
default ({{struts.allowlist.enable=true}}), so making it more permissive needs 
its own security reasoning rather than riding along with a performance change.

h2. What needs deciding
* Whether the exclusion-path gap (arrays of excluded-package types escaping 
exclusion) is exploitable in practice. Note that for an array target, 
{{member.getDeclaringClass()}} is usually {{java.lang.Object}}, which is 
already in {{struts.excludedClasses}}; {{clone()}} is the notable exception, as 
its declaring class is the array type itself.
* Whether the allowlist loosening is acceptable, or whether the two paths 
should use different package semantics.
* Whether {{void}} and primitives should be treated separately from arrays — 
they can never be an OGNL target in the same way.
* Whether any change here needs a migration-guide note, since it can break 
applications that rely on the current behaviour in either direction.

h2. Constraints

Any change must keep {{checkDefaultPackageAccess}} consistent — it 
independently inspects {{getPackage()}} and would otherwise disagree with 
{{toPackageName}} about what "the default package" means.

Requires equivalence tests in {{SecurityMemberAccessPackageMatchingTest}}, 
which already pins the current array/primitive behaviour in 
{{arraysAndPrimitivesResolveToTheEmptyPackage}} and 
{{toPackageNameMatchesLegacyAcrossClassShapes}}. Those tests will need updating 
deliberately, not incidentally.


> Decide whether array and primitive types should resolve to their 
> element/wrapper package in OGNL security checks
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: WW-5676
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5676
>             Project: Struts 2
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Lukasz Lenart
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 7.4.0
>
>
> Split out of [WW-5674|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-5674], where 
> the question was deliberately deferred so that ticket could remain a pure 
> no-behaviour-change optimisation.
> h2. Current behaviour
> {{SecurityMemberAccess.toPackageName(Class)}} returns the empty string for 
> arrays, primitives and {{void}}:
> {code:java}
> public static String toPackageName(Class clazz) {
>     if (clazz.isArray() || clazz.isPrimitive()) {
>         return "";
>     }
>     return clazz.getPackageName();
> }
> {code}
> (The real signature is generic; generics are omitted here because the issue 
> tracker mangles them.)
> The {{isArray() || isPrimitive()}} guard exists specifically to preserve 
> this. It reproduces the pre-WW-5674 implementation, which used 
> {{clazz.getPackage()}} — and {{getPackage()}} returns null for exactly those 
> three categories.
> {{Class.getPackageName()}} resolves them differently: arrays resolve to the 
> element type's package and primitives to {{java.lang}}. Verified on Temurin 
> 17:
> || class || current {{toPackageName}} || {{getPackageName()}} ||
> | {{String[]}} | {{""}} | {{java.lang}} |
> | {{java.io.File[]}} | {{""}} | {{java.io}} |
> | {{int}}, {{int[]}}, {{void}} | {{""}} | {{java.lang}} |
> | {{com.app.MyThing[]}} | {{""}} | {{com.app}} |
> h2. Why this is not a simple hardening fix
> {{toPackageName}} feeds two checks that the change would push in _opposite_ 
> directions.
> _The exclusion path would tighten._ {{isExcludedPackageNames}} would start 
> matching arrays. A {{java.io.File[]}} currently has package {{""}} and 
> escapes {{struts.excludedPackageNames}} entirely, even though {{java.io}} is 
> excluded by default. That looks like a genuine defensive gap.
> _The allowlist path would loosen._ {{isClassAllowlisted}} would start 
> matching arrays too. An application that sets 
> {{struts.allowlist.packageNames=com.app.actions}} does _not_ today thereby 
> allowlist {{com.app.actions.MyThing[]}}, because the array's package is 
> {{""}}; arrays must be listed explicitly in {{struts.allowlist.classes}}. 
> After the change they would be allowlisted implicitly.
> The allowlist is the primary OGNL defence in Struts 7.x and is enabled by 
> default ({{struts.allowlist.enable=true}}), so making it more permissive 
> needs its own security reasoning rather than riding along with a performance 
> change.
> h2. What needs deciding
> * Whether the exclusion-path gap (arrays of excluded-package types escaping 
> exclusion) is exploitable in practice. Note that for an array target, 
> {{member.getDeclaringClass()}} is usually {{java.lang.Object}}, which is 
> already in {{struts.excludedClasses}}; {{clone()}} is the notable exception, 
> as its declaring class is the array type itself.
> * Whether the allowlist loosening is acceptable, or whether the two paths 
> should use different package semantics.
> * Whether {{void}} and primitives should be treated separately from arrays — 
> they can never be an OGNL target in the same way.
> * Whether any change here needs a migration-guide note, since it can break 
> applications that rely on the current behaviour in either direction.
> h2. Constraints
> Any change must keep {{checkDefaultPackageAccess}} consistent — it 
> independently inspects {{getPackage()}} and would otherwise disagree with 
> {{toPackageName}} about what "the default package" means. See WW-5677, which 
> proposes routing that method through {{toPackageName}}.
> Requires equivalence tests in {{SecurityMemberAccessPackageMatchingTest}}, 
> which already pins the current array/primitive behaviour in 
> {{arraysAndPrimitivesResolveToTheEmptyPackage}} and 
> {{toPackageNameMatchesLegacyAcrossClassShapes}}. Those tests will need 
> updating deliberately, not incidentally.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

Reply via email to