Security/Reviews/Mobile/ExposeJNI

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

Item Reviewed

Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes

Target

* SecReview: Mobile - Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=813985 Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787271 Application shortcuts wrongly scaled? (DPI) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=783921#c15 Full Query 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%);

{{#set:SecReview name=Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes |SecReview target=* SecReview: Mobile - Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes

• • https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=813985
• Expose some JNI to js through js-ctypes
  • https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=787271
• Application shortcuts wrongly scaled? (DPI)
  • https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=783921#c15

Full Query

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 File a bug to create pref. for non AMO addons in Fennec SA-TBD: Has ctypes been reviewed? Fuzzed?

{{#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?

}}