3 ms·
You're correct that obfuscation of Java libraries has nothing to do with Java stack inspection/JVM security... but the latter is what the article talks about an
by catern 6y ago
You're correct that obfuscation of Java libraries has nothing to do with Java stack inspection/JVM security... but the latter is what the article talks about and what is cited above, so not sure why you have just now brought up decompiling obfuscated Java libraries, which is, as you say, totally unrelated...
- bpodgursky 6y agoWhat it says is "Java-style stack inspection can restrict user or library code to deny access at runtime to unauthorized methods.", which doesn't seem true to me, if the user has access to the library binaries. It's very possible for the user to just patch the library and use it however they want. It's possible (although I'm not especially convinced) that you can prevent the user from reflectively doing this at runtime, but that's not the only way to access unauthorized methods.
- rowland66 6y agoYes, the OP has this backwards. The Java sandbox would allow an application to limit the access granted to a library to protect from a malicious library. It does not protect a library from being used by an application in way that was not intended by the library creator. It is certainly not a means of enforcing a licensing scheme.
- catern 6y ago>It is certainly not a means of enforcing a licensing scheme. Could you explain what gave you the impression that this was about licensing schemes? That was definitely not my intention.