JDK 11 java.base.jmod - Base Module
JDK 11 java.base.jmod is the JMOD file for JDK 11 Base module.
JDK 11 Base module compiled class files are stored in \fyicenter\jdk-11.0.1\jmods\java.base.jmod.
JDK 11 Base module compiled class files are also linked and stored in the \fyicenter\jdk-11.0.1\lib\modules JImage file.
JDK 11 Base module source code files are stored in \fyicenter\jdk-11.0.1\lib\src.zip\java.base.
You can click and view the content of each source code file in the list below.
✍: FYIcenter
⏎ java/security/SecurityPermission.java
/*
* Copyright (c) 1997, 2017, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* ORACLE PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*/
package java.security;
import java.security.*;
import java.util.Enumeration;
import java.util.Hashtable;
import java.util.StringTokenizer;
/**
* This class is for security permissions. A {@code SecurityPermission}
* contains a name (also referred to as a "target name") but no actions list;
* you either have the named permission or you don't.
* <p>
* The target name is the name of a security configuration parameter
* (see below). Currently the {@code SecurityPermission} object is used to
* guard access to the {@link AccessControlContext}, {@link Policy},
* {@link Provider}, {@link Security}, {@link Signer}, and {@link Identity}
* objects.
* <p>
* The following table lists the standard {@code SecurityPermission}
* target names, and for each provides a description of what the permission
* allows and a discussion of the risks of granting code the permission.
*
* <table class="striped">
* <caption style="display:none">target name, what the permission allows, and associated risks</caption>
* <thead>
* <tr>
* <th scope="col">Permission Target Name</th>
* <th scope="col">What the Permission Allows</th>
* <th scope="col">Risks of Allowing this Permission</th>
* </tr>
* </thead>
* <tbody>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">authProvider.{provider name}</th>
* <td>Allow the named provider to be an AuthProvider for login and
* logout operations. </td>
* <td>This allows the named provider to perform login and logout
* operations. The named provider must extend {@code AuthProvider}
* and care must be taken to grant to a trusted provider since
* login operations involve sensitive authentication information
* such as PINs and passwords. </td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">createAccessControlContext</th>
* <td>Creation of an AccessControlContext</td>
* <td>This allows someone to instantiate an AccessControlContext
* with a {@code DomainCombiner}. Extreme care must be taken when
* granting this permission. Malicious code could create a DomainCombiner
* that augments the set of permissions granted to code, and even grant the
* code {@link java.security.AllPermission}.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">getDomainCombiner</th>
* <td>Retrieval of an AccessControlContext's DomainCombiner</td>
* <td>This allows someone to retrieve an AccessControlContext's
* {@code DomainCombiner}. Since DomainCombiners may contain
* sensitive information, this could potentially lead to a privacy leak.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">getPolicy</th>
* <td>Retrieval of the system-wide security policy (specifically, of the
* currently-installed Policy object)</td>
* <td>This allows someone to query the policy via the
* {@code getPermissions} call,
* which discloses which permissions would be granted to a given CodeSource.
* While revealing the policy does not compromise the security of
* the system, it does provide malicious code with additional information
* which it may use to better aim an attack. It is wise
* not to divulge more information than necessary.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">setPolicy</th>
* <td>Setting of the system-wide security policy (specifically,
* the Policy object)</td>
* <td>Granting this permission is extremely dangerous, as malicious
* code may grant itself all the necessary permissions it needs
* to successfully mount an attack on the system.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">createPolicy.{policy type}</th>
* <td>Getting an instance of a Policy implementation from a provider</td>
* <td>Granting this permission enables code to obtain a Policy object.
* Malicious code may query the Policy object to determine what permissions
* have been granted to code other than itself. </td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">getProperty.{key}</th>
* <td>Retrieval of the security property with the specified key</td>
* <td>Depending on the particular key for which access has
* been granted, the code may have access to the list of security
* providers, as well as the location of the system-wide and user
* security policies. while revealing this information does not
* compromise the security of the system, it does provide malicious
* code with additional information which it may use to better aim
* an attack.
</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">setProperty.{key}</th>
* <td>Setting of the security property with the specified key</td>
* <td>This could include setting a security provider or defining
* the location of the system-wide security policy. Malicious
* code that has permission to set a new security provider may
* set a rogue provider that steals confidential information such
* as cryptographic private keys. In addition, malicious code with
* permission to set the location of the system-wide security policy
* may point it to a security policy that grants the attacker
* all the necessary permissions it requires to successfully mount
* an attack on the system.
</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">insertProvider</th>
* <td>Addition of a new provider</td>
* <td>This would allow somebody to introduce a possibly
* malicious provider (e.g., one that discloses the private keys passed
* to it) as the highest-priority provider. This would be possible
* because the Security object (which manages the installed providers)
* currently does not check the integrity or authenticity of a provider
* before attaching it. The "insertProvider" permission subsumes the
* "insertProvider.{provider name}" permission (see the section below for
* more information).
* </td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">removeProvider.{provider name}</th>
* <td>Removal of the specified provider</td>
* <td>This may change the behavior or disable execution of other
* parts of the program. If a provider subsequently requested by the
* program has been removed, execution may fail. Also, if the removed
* provider is not explicitly requested by the rest of the program, but
* it would normally be the provider chosen when a cryptography service
* is requested (due to its previous order in the list of providers),
* a different provider will be chosen instead, or no suitable provider
* will be found, thereby resulting in program failure.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">clearProviderProperties.{provider name}</th>
* <td>"Clearing" of a Provider so that it no longer contains the properties
* used to look up services implemented by the provider</td>
* <td>This disables the lookup of services implemented by the provider.
* This may thus change the behavior or disable execution of other
* parts of the program that would normally utilize the Provider, as
* described under the "removeProvider.{provider name}" permission.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">putProviderProperty.{provider name}</th>
* <td>Setting of properties for the specified Provider</td>
* <td>The provider properties each specify the name and location
* of a particular service implemented by the provider. By granting
* this permission, you let code replace the service specification
* with another one, thereby specifying a different implementation.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">removeProviderProperty.{provider name}</th>
* <td>Removal of properties from the specified Provider</td>
* <td>This disables the lookup of services implemented by the
* provider. They are no longer accessible due to removal of the properties
* specifying their names and locations. This
* may change the behavior or disable execution of other
* parts of the program that would normally utilize the Provider, as
* described under the "removeProvider.{provider name}" permission.</td>
* </tr>
*
* </tbody>
* </table>
*
* <P>
* The following permissions have been superseded by newer permissions or are
* associated with classes that have been deprecated: {@link Identity},
* {@link IdentityScope}, {@link Signer}. Use of them is discouraged. See the
* applicable classes for more information.
*
* <table class="striped">
* <caption style="display:none">target name, what the permission allows, and associated risks</caption>
* <thead>
* <tr>
* <th scope="col">Permission Target Name</th>
* <th scope="col">What the Permission Allows</th>
* <th scope="col">Risks of Allowing this Permission</th>
* </tr>
* </thead>
*
* <tbody>
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">insertProvider.{provider name}</th>
* <td>Addition of a new provider, with the specified name</td>
* <td>Use of this permission is discouraged from further use because it is
* possible to circumvent the name restrictions by overriding the
* {@link java.security.Provider#getName} method. Also, there is an equivalent
* level of risk associated with granting code permission to insert a provider
* with a specific name, or any name it chooses. Users should use the
* "insertProvider" permission instead.
* <p>This would allow somebody to introduce a possibly
* malicious provider (e.g., one that discloses the private keys passed
* to it) as the highest-priority provider. This would be possible
* because the Security object (which manages the installed providers)
* currently does not check the integrity or authenticity of a provider
* before attaching it.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">setSystemScope</th>
* <td>Setting of the system identity scope</td>
* <td>This would allow an attacker to configure the system identity scope with
* certificates that should not be trusted, thereby granting applet or
* application code signed with those certificates privileges that
* would have been denied by the system's original identity scope.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">setIdentityPublicKey</th>
* <td>Setting of the public key for an Identity</td>
* <td>If the identity is marked as "trusted", this allows an attacker to
* introduce a different public key (e.g., its own) that is not trusted
* by the system's identity scope, thereby granting applet or
* application code signed with that public key privileges that
* would have been denied otherwise.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">setIdentityInfo</th>
* <td>Setting of a general information string for an Identity</td>
* <td>This allows attackers to set the general description for
* an identity. This may trick applications into using a different
* identity than intended or may prevent applications from finding a
* particular identity.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">addIdentityCertificate</th>
* <td>Addition of a certificate for an Identity</td>
* <td>This allows attackers to set a certificate for
* an identity's public key. This is dangerous because it affects
* the trust relationship across the system. This public key suddenly
* becomes trusted to a wider audience than it otherwise would be.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">removeIdentityCertificate</th>
* <td>Removal of a certificate for an Identity</td>
* <td>This allows attackers to remove a certificate for
* an identity's public key. This is dangerous because it affects
* the trust relationship across the system. This public key suddenly
* becomes considered less trustworthy than it otherwise would be.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">printIdentity</th>
* <td>Viewing the name of a principal
* and optionally the scope in which it is used, and whether
* or not it is considered "trusted" in that scope</td>
* <td>The scope that is printed out may be a filename, in which case
* it may convey local system information. For example, here's a sample
* printout of an identity named "carol", who is
* marked not trusted in the user's identity database:<br>
* carol[/home/luehe/identitydb.obj][not trusted]</td>
*</tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">getSignerPrivateKey</th>
* <td>Retrieval of a Signer's private key</td>
* <td>It is very dangerous to allow access to a private key; private
* keys are supposed to be kept secret. Otherwise, code can use the
* private key to sign various files and claim the signature came from
* the Signer.</td>
* </tr>
*
* <tr>
* <th scope="row">setSignerKeyPair</th>
* <td>Setting of the key pair (public key and private key) for a Signer</td>
* <td>This would allow an attacker to replace somebody else's (the "target's")
* keypair with a possibly weaker keypair (e.g., a keypair of a smaller
* keysize). This also would allow the attacker to listen in on encrypted
* communication between the target and its peers. The target's peers
* might wrap an encryption session key under the target's "new" public
* key, which would allow the attacker (who possesses the corresponding
* private key) to unwrap the session key and decipher the communication
* data encrypted under that session key.</td>
* </tr>
*
* </tbody>
* </table>
*
* @implNote
* Implementations may define additional target names, but should use naming
* conventions such as reverse domain name notation to avoid name clashes.
*
* @see java.security.BasicPermission
* @see java.security.Permission
* @see java.security.Permissions
* @see java.security.PermissionCollection
* @see java.lang.SecurityManager
*
*
* @author Marianne Mueller
* @author Roland Schemers
* @since 1.2
*/
public final class SecurityPermission extends BasicPermission {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 5236109936224050470L;
/**
* Creates a new SecurityPermission with the specified name.
* The name is the symbolic name of the SecurityPermission. An asterisk
* may appear at the end of the name, following a ".", or by itself, to
* signify a wildcard match.
*
* @param name the name of the SecurityPermission
*
* @throws NullPointerException if {@code name} is {@code null}.
* @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code name} is empty.
*/
public SecurityPermission(String name)
{
super(name);
}
/**
* Creates a new SecurityPermission object with the specified name.
* The name is the symbolic name of the SecurityPermission, and the
* actions String is currently unused and should be null.
*
* @param name the name of the SecurityPermission
* @param actions should be null.
*
* @throws NullPointerException if {@code name} is {@code null}.
* @throws IllegalArgumentException if {@code name} is empty.
*/
public SecurityPermission(String name, String actions)
{
super(name, actions);
}
}
⏎ java/security/SecurityPermission.java
Or download all of them as a single archive file:
File name: java.base-11.0.1-src.zip File size: 8740354 bytes Release date: 2018-11-04 Download
2020-05-29, 204300👍, 0💬
Related Topics: