Difference between revisions of "Inner classes"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Inner classes have been called "dangerous" by several Java security guidelines. However, there is no additional danger inherent in the use of inner classes that is not inherent in the use of other types of polymorphism. In general, use as little polymorphism as possible since it, by default, it exposes data.
 
Inner classes have been called "dangerous" by several Java security guidelines. However, there is no additional danger inherent in the use of inner classes that is not inherent in the use of other types of polymorphism. In general, use as little polymorphism as possible since it, by default, it exposes data.
  
Java Security Researcher Tom Hawtin sums up the "danger" of inner classes in his blog at http://jroller.com/page/tackline in just one word: "Bollocks".
+
Java Security Researcher Tom Hawtin sums up the "danger" of inner classes in his blog at http://jroller.com/page/tackline

Revision as of 12:15, 17 January 2007

Inner classes have been called "dangerous" by several Java security guidelines. However, there is no additional danger inherent in the use of inner classes that is not inherent in the use of other types of polymorphism. In general, use as little polymorphism as possible since it, by default, it exposes data.

Java Security Researcher Tom Hawtin sums up the "danger" of inner classes in his blog at http://jroller.com/page/tackline