Difference between revisions of "Inner classes"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
[[OWASP Code Review Guide Table of Contents]]__TOC__
+
[[OWASP Code Review Guide Table of Contents]]__TOC__ <br>
 
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
 
Java Security Researcher Tom Hawtin sums up the "danger" of inner classes in his blog at http://jroller.com/page/tackline
 
[[Category:OWASP Code Review Project]]
 
[[Category:OWASP Code Review Project]]

Revision as of 12:18, 17 January 2007

OWASP Code Review Guide Table of Contents
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