Item Reviewed
| Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes | |||||||||||||
| Target | * SecReview: Mobile - Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes
2 Total; 0 Open (0%); 2 Resolved (100%); 0 Verified (0%); |
||||||||||||
{{#set:SecReview name=Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes |SecReview target=* SecReview: Mobile - Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes
- Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes
- Application shortcuts wrongly scaled? (DPI)
| ID | Summary | Priority | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 787271 | Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes | -- | RESOLVED |
| 813985 | SecReview: Mobile - Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes | -- | RESOLVED |
2 Total; 0 Open (0%); 2 Resolved (100%); 0 Verified (0%);
}}
Introduce the Feature
Goal of Feature, what is trying to be achieved (problem solved, use cases, etc)
- allow the call of Java methods or objects via extensions
- can't do anything that fennec can't do
What solutions/approaches were considered other than the proposed solution?
- could have implemented in pure JS
- https://github.com/cscott/skeleton-addon-fxandroid/blob/jni/jni.jsm
- does not use native parts
Why was this solution chosen?
`
Any security threats already considered in the design and why?
- same subset as in desktop
- addons have a great deal of power as they have the same rights as the browser
Threat Brainstorming
- Malicious addons using this API
- What if an addon exposes some API to content. And content causes a buffer overflow (eg) in this API. Could that give content access to chrome via bugs in ctypes?
{{#set: SecReview feature goal=* allow the call of Java methods or objects via extensions
- can't do anything that fennec can't do
|SecReview alt solutions=* could have implemented in pure JS
- https://github.com/cscott/skeleton-addon-fxandroid/blob/jni/jni.jsm
- does not use native parts
|SecReview solution chosen=' |SecReview threats considered=* same subset as in desktop
- addons have a great deal of power as they have the same rights as the browser
|SecReview threat brainstorming=* Malicious addons using this API
- What if an addon exposes some API to content. And content causes a buffer overflow (eg) in this API. Could that give content access to chrome via bugs in ctypes?
}}
Action Items
| Action Item Status | None | ||||||||||||
| Release Target | ` | ||||||||||||
| Action Items | |||||||||||||
*dchan: Find out if we have metrics about non-AMO installed addons on Fennec
2 Total; 1 Open (50%); 1 Resolved (50%); 0 Verified (0%); |
|||||||||||||
{{#set:|SecReview action item status=None
|Feature version=` |SecReview action items=*dchan: Find out if we have metrics about non-AMO installed addons on Fennec
- File a bug to create pref. for non AMO addons in Fennec
- SA-TBD: Has ctypes been reviewed? Fuzzed?
| ID | Summary | Priority | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 816289 | Create about:config pref for allowing non-AMO addon installs | -- | RESOLVED |
| 816360 | Fuzzing: ctypes (mobile/desktop) | -- | NEW |
2 Total; 1 Open (50%); 1 Resolved (50%); 0 Verified (0%);
}}