Security/Reviews/MobileJavaAddOns

   

     Full Query    

1 Total; 0 Open (0%); 1 Resolved (100%); 0 Verified (0%);

• Property "SecReview feature goal" (as page type) with input value "* Allow addons to run Java code on native Fennec
  • • currnetly cannot interact with the UI
    • android style Java archive
  • blog post: https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=778" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
  • Property "SecReview alt solutions" (as page type) with input value "* no Java, thus no add-ons
  • How about creating APIs for other processes to interact with fennec?
    • No advantage in this over JS only and more work
    • Except that you can use the android perm. model to restrict things even more

  Why was this solution chosen?

  • parity with desktop
    • is jetpack/SDK/FUEL type APIs an option?" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
    • Property "SecReview threat brainstorming" (as page type) with input value "* Do we really want parity with desktop? Currently all sorts of bad things happen on desktop that we neatly sidestep due to the restrictions of fennec.
    • This could potentially mean that we provide a route for malware that's not there currently - (chrome XSS == any API access that we've requested)
  • Bypass security for things like camera access where Java code can silently open the camera while JS code will have to use getUserMedia and will have to go through a dialog for user approval
  • Possibility to download remote code to local filesystem and execute it
  • Have we thought about how this might impact on review procedures for addons?
    • We wouldn't be able to review binary only-stuff" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.