Talk:Security of the Java software platform

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Java , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Java on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaWikipedia:WikiProject JavaTemplate:WikiProject JavaJava

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject icon Software : Computing Mid‐importance

WikiProject icon

Computer security : Computing High‐importance

WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer security , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer securityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer securityTemplate:WikiProject Computer securityComputer security High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Taskforce icon This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance). Things you can help WikiProject Computer security with: Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

I have now added more general and neutral information about the security features of the Java platform to this page, in addition to the existing criticism of the security manager. I therefore propose that the suggestion to merge this page with "Criticism of Java" be removed. -- Andrewmth (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm opposed to the merger (that is, I support the tag being removed). --Article editor (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks very much! Since it's been (almost) a month since I proposed removing the tag, and nobody has objected in that time (and one person has written in support), I have gone ahead and removed the tag. I'm a relatively new editor so I hope that doesn't violate any etiquette guidelines; if it does then feel free to revert. --Andrewmth (talk) 02:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed the counterparting template in Criticism of Java. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Under chapter 1.1, the author states:

"This means that Java programs are significantly less likely to suffer from memory safety flaws such as buffer overflow than programs written in languages such as C which do not provide such memory safety guarantees."

My understanding is, that this is a contradiction to the sentences before the cited one, as the JVM should prevent all attempts of memory corruption from within the Bytecode itself, by the nature of its architecture.

The only memory corruption attack vector in the JVM environment is an attack on the JVM implementation itself and not owed due to semantic errors in the Java program, right? Thus, all JVM based languages eradicate a whole category of memory corrupting exploits - like buffer overflows -, that are possible in other non runtime-checked languages. So an attacker does not target an individual program if he wants to attack a computer, but a whole class of programs that make use of an exploitable vulnerability of the JVM. Under this class of programs, the programmers are free of accountability, as they have no influence over the vulnerability with their code.

Please clarify the intention of the sentence.

Creaturo (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC) [reply ]