-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Review vulnerabilities report #914
Comments
Thank you for your interest, but I think the report is indeed mistaken: Labeling as feature request. |
Respectfully, I don't think it is. The code as is does not guarantee to the user that the library that will be loaded is the one that was intended to be loaded (it could be planted by an attacker at the "well known location" jna loads it from)... and this is why it is a security vulnerability. As far as I know, it is non-straightforward to guarantee that this doesn't happen in Java... but improving upon the status quo is trivial and starts with introducing some randomness (something unpredictable to the attacker) in the temporary folder JNA operates from. |
Is there a signature checksum check of the native library? |
@typelogic please don't hijack random issue. The issue template mentions, that questions should be directed to the mailinglist. |
Hello,
We scanned JNA 4.5.1 artifact using static veracode analyzer and possible found some vulnerabilities.
Part of these have very-high severity level, these can be false positive, but need to be checked.
I attached detailed vulnerabilities report to the issue: jna_4.5.1_report.pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: