Malicious code vulnerability - May expose internal representation by returning reference to mutable object

Question

Hi I\'m getting the violation as below:

Malicious code vulnerability - May expose internal representation by returning reference to mutable object

Answer 1

Let's suppose the following:

1. Your class does something that matters from a security or privacy perspective, and that the state of chkbox is somehow used in the classes implementation of its privacy / security mechanisms.

2. The chkBox() method can be called by some code that is not trusted.

Now consider this code:

// ... in an untrusted method ...

Foo foo = ... 
String[] mwahaha = foo.chkBox();
mwahaha[0] = "Gotcha!"; // ... this changes the effective state of `Foo`

By returning a reference to the actual array that represents the chkbox, you are allowing code external to the Foo class to reach in and change its state.

This is bad from a design perspective (it is called a "leaky abstraction"). However, if this class is used in a context where there may also be untrusted code, this (the chkBox() method) is a potential security hole. That is what the violation message is telling you.

(Of course, the code checker has no way of knowing if this particular class is really security critical. That's for you to understand. What it is actually saying to you is "Hey! Look here! This is suspicious!")

---

The fix depends on whether this code (or indeed the entire library or application) is security critical ... or code be security critical in some future deployment. If this is a false alarm, you could just suppress the violation; i.e. mark it so that will be ignored by the checker. If this is a real issue (or could become a real issue), then either return a copy of the array:

    return (String[]) chkBox.clone();

But clearly, there is a performance cost in cloning the array each time you call chkBox. Alternatively, you could modify the chkBox method to return a selected element of the array:

    public String chkBox(int i) {
       return chkBox[i];
    }

In this case, I suspect that the alternative approach will be better ... though it depends on how the method is currently used.