Security/Reviews/MobileJavaAddOns

Please use "Edit with form" above to edit this page.

Item Reviewed

Mobile-APIs for Java Code in Addons
Target	Full Query ID Summary Priority Status 805436 SecReview: Mobile - support / provide APIs for Java Code in Addons -- RESOLVED 1 Total; 0 Open (0%); 1 Resolved (100%); 0 Verified (0%); blog post by kats: https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=778

{{#set:SecReview name=Mobile-APIs for Java Code in Addons

|SecReview target=

Full Query

ID	Summary	Priority	Status
805436	SecReview: Mobile - support / provide APIs for Java Code in Addons	--	RESOLVED

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

blog post by kats: https://staktrace.com/spout/entry.php?id=778 }}

Introduce the Feature

Goal of Feature, what is trying to be achieved (problem solved, use cases, etc)

• 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

What solutions/approaches were considered other than the proposed solution?

• 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?

Why was this solution chosen?

`

Any security threats already considered in the design and why?

`

Threat Brainstorming

• 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

{{#set: SecReview feature goal=* 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

|SecReview alt solutions=* 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?

|SecReview solution chosen=' |SecReview threats considered=' |SecReview threat brainstorming=* 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

}}

Action Items

Action Item Status	None
Release Target	`
Action Items
'

{{#set:|SecReview action item status=None

|Feature version=` |SecReview action items=` }} Related to CTypes JNI - Which still needs review (Wes) Product has not made a decision about this feature explicitely