This site is the archived OWASP Foundation Wiki and is no longer accepting Account Requests.
To view the new OWASP Foundation website, please visit https://owasp.org
Difference between revisions of "Inner classes"
From OWASP
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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 | + | [[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 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 | + | 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]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:17, 19 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 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
