Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Java: Create new query Cleartext storage of sensitive information in Android filesystem #6576
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
Java: Create new query Cleartext storage of sensitive information in Android filesystem #6576
Changes from all commits
c1ac09a
79ddbd6
1e4840e
9bbba3c
22aad17
d9e6e5a
500deac
ba3a4fb
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should this also cover the
java.io.File
methods (unless they are covered somewhere else)?createTempFile
(directory
argument)createNewFile()
,mkdir()
,mkdirs()
: Receiver is the sinkrenameTo(File)
: Argument is the sinkThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems inconsistent that Writer.write is modelled as a file-write but FileOutputStream is special-cased rather than inheriting from OutputStream.write?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My reasoning for this was that, if constructed properly, several kinds of
Writer
can be used to write to a file, e.g.Whereas, AFAIK, the same cannot be said about
OutputStream
, i.e. it needs to be aFileOutputStream
if you want to write to a file.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah sure, I thought you were handling cases where you're not sure where the
OutputStream
came from. Worth checking if we track taint well enough that the typicalBufferedOuputStream(FileOutputStream(...))
works?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm you're right, the case for
OutputStream
s is actually very similar toWriter
since you can always wrap it in another stream.I don't think it currently works for that case, because
BufferedOutputStream.write
isn't defined as a sink, and AFAIK we don't support this kind of wrapping when calculating virtual dispatch.So, for consistency, if you agree I could change the
FileOutputStream
sink toOutputStream
, and see if it generates too many FPs. Because I'm afraid that the opposite (modeling onlyFileWriter
) would cause too many FNs.