Skip to content
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

Add support for XMLConstants.FEATURE_SECURE_PROCESSING via SAX/Stax factories #61

Closed
cowtowncoder opened this issue Aug 23, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
active Issue being actively investigated
Milestone

Comments

@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member

note: behavior clarified in JEP=185). Also related: #51

So: to support more standard JAXP/Staax configuration, let's add support for "secure processing" configurability. This will be in addition to Woodstox-specific (and more convenient, but only if using Woodstox) configuration options... although looks like there was no "configureForSecurity()` yet, so we might as well add that as an alias.

@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member Author

Added skeletal support for both Stax and SAX factories: enabling via setProperty/setFeature (Stax / SAX) will disable resolution of external parsed entities, which seems like the only obvious setting.
Since Woodstox already sets reasonably size limits, did not add stricter settings although if someone suggests better settings I am open to further changes.

Note that I did not add support for either system property or jaxp.properties -- if those are desired, please file a separate issue.

@cowtowncoder cowtowncoder changed the title Add support for XMLConstants.FEATURE_SECURE_PROCESSING Add support for XMLConstants.FEATURE_SECURE_PROCESSING via SAX/Stax factories Jul 14, 2019
@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member Author

Will be included in 5.3.0 to be released today.

@deanshapira
Copy link

@cowtowncoder is there a CVE associated with this security vulnerability?

@cowtowncoder
Copy link
Member Author

@deanshapira Not that I know of. Since it simply bundles enabling of existing settings I don't think it would qualify.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
active Issue being actively investigated
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants