Hacktoberfest 2026: as issues que os mantenedores marcaram para outubro, abertas e boas para iniciantes. Ver issues do Hacktoberfest

Recursion in Util.java. I suspect that this will lead to issues passing a Google Tier2 CASA

Aberta
#1,785 0 comentários 0 reações 0 responsáveis Ver no GitHub

Ninguém assumiu esta issue ainda.

Avaliação

Dificuldade
2/5
Tempo estimado
1-3 horas
Facilidade para iniciantes
35/100
Tipo de issue
Bug
Clareza
Razoavelmente clara
Status de atividade
Estagnada
Stack de tecnologia
android, java
Domínio
mobile-dev, security

Direção de pesquisa

Comece pelo bloco catch de isDebuggableApp referenciado em test-app/app/src/main/java/com/tns/Util.java e, em seguida, inspecione o ponto de entrada isDebuggable() em test-app/runtime/src/main/java/com/tns/Runtime.java. Confirme que o caminho de catch não pode entrar em recursão e verifique se o comportamento resultante atende ao comportamento esperado e aborda a preocupação de varredura relatada.

Escrita pelo modelo de indexação a partir do texto da issue.

Descrição

Environment
Provide version numbers for the following components (information can be retrieved by running tns info in your project folder or by inspecting the package.json of the project):

✔ Getting NativeScript components versions information...
✔ Component nativescript has 8.5.3 version and is up to date.
✔ Component @nativescript/core has 8.5.9 version and is up to date.
✔ Component @nativescript/ios has 8.5.2 version and is up to date.
✔ Component @nativescript/android has 8.5.2 version and is up to date.

Describe the bug
Hello together, I am currently preparing for a Tier2 CASA from Google. As I do have to provide Source Code scans using FluidAttacks and it detected a vulnerability in this context of printStackTrace I found the following issue.

https://github.com/NativeScript/android/blob/57388331bf85473d6c3cf5f115dd9d290b80d59b/test-app/app/src/main/java/com/tns/Util.java#L28

public static boolean isDebuggableApp(Context context) {
        int flags;
        try {
            flags = context.getPackageManager().getPackageInfo(context.getPackageName(), 0).applicationInfo.flags;
        } catch (NameNotFoundException e) {
            flags = 0;
            if (Util.isDebuggableApp(context)) {
                e.printStackTrace();
            }
        }

        boolean isDebuggableApp = ((flags & ApplicationInfo.FLAG_DEBUGGABLE) != 0);
        return isDebuggableApp;
    }

It is clear that printStackTrace() is only called in debug mode. However, I consider telling the guys at Google that this is save code as no good idea as it results in a recursion in the catch block. I would suspect that the e.printStackTrace(); in the catch block is actually never called, hence would it not make sense to completly remove it? I have also seen that the runtime provides
a check for isDebuggableApp. Maybe a save alternative would be to just call com.tns.Runtime.isDebuggable() ?

https://github.com/NativeScript/android/blob/57388331bf85473d6c3cf5f115dd9d290b80d59b/test-app/runtime/src/main/java/com/tns/Runtime.java#L248

I do not know the inner workings good enough to know if the runtime always exists at that point. Please consider it as just an idea.

Expected behavior
Catch should not run into a rekursion

Additional context

https://gitlab.com/fluidattacks/universe/-/issues/10406

Currently I am seeing lots of issues in FluidAttacks indirectly referencing this code. Below output is just an example. To my understanding this is a false positive as printStackTrace is not called for production builds. However, also in production builds the recursion would exist to my understanding.

234. Technical information leak - Stacktrace,CWE-209,The error stacktrace can be printed in OWASP/app/src/debug/java/com/tns/ErrorReport.java,CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N/E:U/RL:U/RC:R,https://docs.fluidattacks.com/criteria/vulnerabilities/234,skims,SAST,92,"
   82 |         final int version = Build.VERSION.SDK_INT;
   83 |         if (version >= 23) {
   84 |             try {
   85 |                 // Necessary to work around compile errors with compileSdk 22 and lower
   86 |                 Method checkSelfPermissionMethod;
   87 |                 try {
   88 |                     checkSelfPermissionMethod = ActivityCompat.class.getMethod(""checkSelfPermission"", Context.class, Stri
   89 |                 } catch (NoSuchMethodException e) {
   90 |                     // method wasn't found, so there is no need to handle permissions explicitly
   91 |                     if (Util.isDebuggableApp(activity)) {
>  92 |                         e.printStackTrace();
   93 |                     }
   94 |                     return;
   95 |                 }
   96 |
   97 |                 int permission = (int) checkSelfPermissionMethod.invoke(null, activity, Manifest.permission.WRITE_EXTERNA
   98 |
   99 |                 if (permission != PackageManager.PERMISSION_GRANTED) {
  100 |                     // We don't have permission so prompt the user
  101 |                     Method requestPermissionsMethod = ActivityCompat.class.getMethod(""requestPermissions"", Activity.class
  102 |
      ^ Col 0
",java.java_info_leak_stacktrace
Linguagem predominante
C++
Estrelas
563
Forks
144
Merge médio
10h 46min
PRs com merge (30d)
14

Guia de contribuição

Abrir o guia de contribuição

Primeiros passos

  1. Leia a issue inteira e depois o guia de contribuição do projeto.
  2. Comente na issue dizendo que vai assumir — evita que duas pessoas façam o mesmo trabalho.
  3. Faça um fork do repositório e trabalhe em uma branch.
  4. Abra um pull request que referencie o número da issue.

Mais de NativeScript/android

Todas as issues de NativeScript/android

Issues semelhantes

Mais issues de C++

Receba novas issues na sua caixa de entrada

Um resumo curto de issues do GitHub para quem está começando.