Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
secure erasure of Java key/password buffers
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  1 message - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
mortadelo  
View profile  
 More options Jul 16 2012, 4:15 am
Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
From: mortadelo <mortadel...@googlemail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Mon, Jul 16 2012 4:15 am
Subject: secure erasure of Java key/password buffers
Hi everybody,

I’ve just stumbled across some crypto interface code written in Java where buffers of (sensitive) data/keys are not explicitly erased (zeroed out) after use. Coming from a C programming background where explicit zeroing out of memory after use is highly recommended, I’m wondering whether this should also be done in Java. I understand that it’s impossible to guarantee efficient erasure of all possible instances of a data object in Java.

I’m seeing two contradictory arguments here:
•     Explicit zeroing out of a memory object after use may considerably reduce, ideally eliminate  the likelihood/number of remaining object instances with the original content.
•     Explicit zeroing out (i.e. alteration) of a memory object may cause the memory manager to explicitly create a new (additional) copy of the original content. Hence, this action would not catch the initial instance of the data abject, but only create additional overhead.

Does it make sense to distinguish between "simple" data types (e.g. an int array with constant size) and "complex" data types (e.g. a string object)? Do you know of any good research or reference about this? I haven’t found anything well investigated in the Internet. Both arguments exist.

Thanks, Michael


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »