Inner classes - Revision history

Jmanico at 11:17, 19 January 2007

2007-01-19T11:17:33Z

EoinKeary at 17:18, 17 January 2007

2007-01-17T17:18:39Z

EoinKeary at 17:18, 17 January 2007

2007-01-17T17:18:13Z

EoinKeary at 17:15, 17 January 2007

2007-01-17T17:15:22Z

Jmanico at 18:34, 3 January 2007

2007-01-03T18:34:26Z

Jmanico at 18:32, 3 January 2007

2007-01-03T18:32:43Z

New page

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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[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 definition, it exposes data.
 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]]

@@ 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.
 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]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 17 January 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	[[OWASP Code Review Guide Table of Contents]]__TOC__
	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]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 17 January 2007
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

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:34, 3 January 2007
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".