How To Implement Input Validation For REST resources

rest-validationThe SaaS platform I’m working on has a RESTful interface that accepts XML payloads.

Implementing REST Resources

For a Java shop like us, it makes sense to use JAX-B to generate JavaBean classes from an XML Schema.

Working with XML (and JSON) payloads using JAX-B is very easy in a JAX-RS environment like Jersey:

public class OrdersResource {
  @Consumes({ "application/xml", "application/json" })
  public void place(Order order) {
    // Jersey marshalls the XML payload into the Order 
    // JavaBean, allowing us to write type-safe code 
    // using Order's getters and setters.
    int quantity = order.getQuantity();
    // ...

(Note that you shouldn’t use these generic media types, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

The remainder of this post assumes JAX-B, but its main point is valid for other technologies as well. Whatever you do, please don’t use XMLDecoder, since that is open to a host of vulnerabilities.

Securing REST Resources

Let’s suppose the order’s quantity is used for billing, and we want to prevent people from stealing our money by entering a negative amount.

We can do that with input validation, one of the most important tools in the AppSec toolkit. Let’s look at some ways to implement it.

Input Validation With XML Schema

xml-schemaWe could rely on XML Schema for validation, but XML Schema can only validate so much.

Validating individual properties will probably work fine, but things get hairy when we want to validate relations between properties. For maximum flexibility, we’d like to use Java to express constraints.

More importantly, schema validation is generally not a good idea in a REST service.

A major goal of REST is to decouple client and server so that they can evolve separately.

If we validate against a schema, then a new client that sends a new property would break against an old server that doesn’t understand the new property. It’s usually better to silently ignore properties you don’t understand.

JAX-B does this right, and also the other way around: properties that are not sent by an old client end up as null. Consequently, the new server must be careful to handle null values properly.

Input Validation With Bean Validation

bean-validationIf we can’t use schema validation, then what about using JSR 303 Bean Validation?

Jersey supports Bean Validation by adding the jersey-bean-validation jar to your classpath.

There is an unofficial Maven plugin to add Bean Validation annotations to the JAX-B generated classes, but I’d rather use something better supported and that works with Gradle.

So let’s turn things around. We’ll handcraft our JavaBean and generate the XML Schema from the bean for documentation:

@XmlRootElement(name = "order")
public class Order {
  public int quantity;
public class OrdersResource {
  @Consumes({ "application/xml", "application/json" })
  public void place(@Valid Order order) {
    // Jersey recognizes the @Valid annotation and
    // returns 400 when the JavaBean is not valid

Any attempt to POST an order with a non-positive quantity will now give a 400 Bad Request status.

Now suppose we want to allow clients to change their pending orders. We’d use PATCH or PUT to update individual order properties, like quantity:

public class OrdersResource {
  public Order update(@PathParam("id") String id, 
      @Min(1) @FormParam("quantity") int quantity) {
    // ...

We need to add the @Min annotation here too, which is duplication. To make this DRY, we can turn quantity into a class that is responsible for validation:

public class OrdersResource {
  public Order update(@PathParam("id") String id, 
      Quantity quantity) {
    // ...
@XmlRootElement(name = "order")
public class Order {
  public Quantity quantity;
public class Quantity {
  private int value;

  public Quantity() { }

  public Quantity(String value) {
    try {
    } catch (ValidationException e) {
      throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);

  public int getValue() {
    return value;

  public void setValue(int value) 
      throws ValidationException {
    if (value < 1) {
      throw new ValidationException(
          "Quantity value must be positive, but is: " 
          + value);
    this.value = value;

We need a public no-arg constructor for JAX-B to be able to unmarshall the payload into a JavaBean and another constructor that takes a String for the @FormParam to work.

setValue() throws javax.xml.bind.ValidationException so that JAX-B will stop unmarshalling. However, Jersey returns a 500 Internal Server Error when it sees an exception.

We can fix that by mapping validation exceptions onto 400 status codes using an exception mapper. While we’re at it, let’s do the same for IllegalArgumentException:

public class DefaultExceptionMapper 
    implements ExceptionMapper<Throwable> {

  public Response toResponse(Throwable exception) {
    Throwable badRequestException 
        = getBadRequestException(exception);
    if (badRequestException != null) {
      return Response.status(Status.BAD_REQUEST)
    if (exception instanceof WebApplicationException) {
      return ((WebApplicationException)exception)
    return Response.serverError()

  private Throwable getBadRequestException(
      Throwable exception) {
    if (exception instanceof ValidationException) {
      return exception;
    Throwable cause = exception.getCause();
    if (cause != null && cause != exception) {
      Throwable result = getBadRequestException(cause);
      if (result != null) {
        return result;
    if (exception instanceof IllegalArgumentException) {
      return exception;
    if (exception instanceof BadRequestException) {
      return exception;
    return null;


Input Validation By Domain Objects

dddEven though the approach outlined above will work quite well for many applications, it is fundamentally flawed.

At first sight, proponents of Domain-Driven Design (DDD) might like the idea of creating the Quantity class.

But the Order and Quantity classes do not model domain concepts; they model REST representations. This distinction may be subtle, but it is important.

DDD deals with domain concepts, while REST deals with representations of those concepts. Domain concepts are discovered, but representations are designed and are subject to all kinds of trade-offs.

For instance, a collection REST resource may use paging to prevent sending too much data over the wire. Another REST resource may combine several domain concepts to make the client-server protocol less chatty.

A REST resource may even have no corresponding domain concept at all. For example, a POST may return 202 Accepted and point to a REST resource that represents the progress of an asynchronous transaction.

ubiquitous-languageDomain objects need to capture the ubiquitous language as closely as possible, and must be free from trade-offs to make the functionality work.

When designing REST resources, on the other hand, one needs to make trade-offs to meet non-functional requirements like performance, scalability, and evolvability.

That’s why I don’t think an approach like RESTful Objects will work. (For similar reasons, I don’t believe in Naked Objects for the UI.)

Adding validation to the JavaBeans that are our resource representations means that those beans now have two reasons to change, which is a clear violation of the Single Responsibility Principle.

We get a much cleaner architecture when we use JAX-B JavaBeans only for our REST representations and create separate domain objects that handle validation.

Putting validation in domain objects is what Dan Bergh Johnsson refers to as Domain-Driven Security.

cave-artIn this approach, primitive types are replaced with value objects. (Some people even argue against using any Strings at all.)

At first it may seem overkill to create a whole new class to hold a single integer, but I urge you to give it a try. You may find that getting rid of primitive obsession provides value even beyond validation.

What do you think?

How do you handle input validation in your RESTful services? What do you think of Domain-Driven Security? Please leave a comment.

Using Cryptography in Java Applications

This post describes how to use the Java Cryptography Architecture (JCA) that allows you to use cryptographic services in your applications.

Java Cryptography Architecture Services

The JCA provides a number of cryptographic services, like message digests and signatures. These services are accessible through service specific APIs, like MessageDigest and Signature. Cryptographic services abstract different algorithms. For digests, for instance, you could use MD5 or SHA1. You specify the algorithm as a parameter to the getInstance() method of the cryptographic service class:

MessageDigest digest = MessageDigest.getInstance("MD5");

You find the value of the parameter for your algorithm in the JCA Standard Algorithm Name Documentation. Some algorithms have parameters. For instance, an algorithm to generate a private/public key pair will take the key size as a parameter. You specify the parameter(s) using the initialize() method:

KeyPairGenerator generator = KeyPairGenerator.getInstance("DSA");

If you don’t call the initialize() method, some default value will be used, which may or may not be what you want. Unfortunately, the API for initialization is not 100% consistent across services. For instance, the Cipher class uses init() with an argument indicating encryption or decryption, while the Signature class uses initSign() for signing and initVerify() for verification.

Java Cryptography Architecture Providers

The JCA keeps your code independent from a particular cryptographic algorithm’s implementation through the provider system. Providers are ranked according to a preference order, which is configurable (see below). The best preference is 1, the next best is 2, etc. The preference order allows the JCA to select the best available provider that implements a given algorithm. Alternatively, you can specify a specific provider in the second argument to getInstance():

Signature signature = Signature.getInstance("SHA1withDSA", "SUN");

The JRE comes with a bunch of providers from Oracle by default. However, due to historical export restrictions, these are not the most secure implementations. To get access to better algorithms and larger key sizes, install the Java Cryptography Extension Unlimited Strength Jurisdiction Policy Files. Update: Note that the above statement is true for the Oracle JRE. OpenJDK doesn’t have the same limitation.

Make Your Use of Cryptography Configurable

You should always make sure that the cryptographic services that your application uses are configurable. If you do that, you can change the cryptographic algorithm and/or implementation without issuing a patch. This is particularly valuable when a new attack on an (implementation of an) algorithm becomes available. The JCA makes it easy to configure the use of cryptography. The getInstance() method accepts both the name of the algorithm and the name of the provider implementing that algorithm. You should read both and any values for the algorithm’s parameters from some sort of configuration file. Also make sure you keep your code DRY and instantiate cryptographic services in a single place. Check that the requested algorithm and/or provider are actually available. The getInstance() method throws NoSuchAlgorithmException when a given algorithm or provider is not available, so you should catch that. The safest option then is to fail and have someone make sure the system is configured properly. If you continue despite a configuration error, you may end up with a system that is less secure than required. Note that Oracle recommends not specifying the provider. The reasons they provide is that not all providers may be available on all platforms, and that specifying a provider may mean that you miss out on optimizations. You should weigh those disadvantages against the risk of being vulnerable. Deploying specific providers with known characteristics with your application may neutralize the disadvantages that Oracle mentions.

Adding Cryptographic Service Providers

The provider system is extensible, so you can add providers. For example, you could use the open source Bouncy Castle or the commercial RSA BSAFE providers. In order to add a provider, you must make sure that its jar is available to the application. You can put it on the classpath for this purpose. Alternatively, you can make it an installed extension by placing it in the $JAVA_HOME/lib/ext directory, where $JAVA_HOME is the location of your JDK/JRE distribution. The major difference between the two approaches is that installed extensions are granted all permissions by default whereas code on the classpath is not. This is significant when (part of) your code runs in a sandbox. Some services, like Cipher, require the provider jar to be signed. The next step is to register the provider with the JCA provider system. The simplest way is to use Security.addProvider():

Security.addProvider(new BouncyCastleProvider());

You can also set the provider’s preference order by using the Security.insertProviderAt() method:

Security.insertProviderAt (new JsafeJCE(), 1);

One downside of this approach is that it couples your code to the provider, since you have to import the provider class. This may not be an important issue in an modular system like OSGi. Another thing to look out for is that code requires SecurityPermission to add a provider programmatically. The provider can also be configured as part of your environment via static registration by adding an entry to the properties file (found in $JAVA_HOME/jre/lib/security/


The property names in this file start with security.provider. and end with the provider’s preference. The property value is the fully qualified name of the class implementing Provider.

Implementing Your Own Cryptographic Service Provider

Don’t do it. You will get it wrong and be vulnerable to attacks.

Using Cryptographic Service Providers

The documentation for the provider should tell you what provider name to use as the second argument to getInstance(). For instance, Bouncy Castle uses BC, while RSA BSAFE uses JsafeJCE. Most providers have custom APIs as well as JCA conformant APIs. Do not use the custom APIs, since that will make it impossible to configure the algorithms and providers used.

Not All Algorithms and Implementations Are Created Equal

It’s important to note that different algorithms and implementations have different characteristics and that those may make them more or less suitable for your situation. For instance, some organizations will only allow algorithms and implementations that are FIPS 140-2 certified or are on the list of NSA Suite B cryptographic algorithms. Always make sure you understand your customer’s cryptographic needs and requirements.

Using JCA in an OSGi environment

The getInstance() method is a factory method that uses the Service Provider Interface (SPI). That is problematic in an OSGi world, since OSGi violates the SPI framework’s assumption that there is a single classpath. Another potential issue is that JCA requires some jars to be signed. If those jars are not valid OSGi bundles, you can’t run them through bnd to make them so, since that would make the signature invalid. Fortunately, you can kill both birds with one stone. Put your provider jars on the classpath of your main program, that is the program that starts the OSGi framework. Then export the provider package from the OSGi system bundle using the org.osgi.framework.system.packages.extra system property. This will make the system bundle export that package. Now you can simply use Import-Package on the provider package in your bundles. There are other options for resolving these problems if you can’t use the above solution.

Software Development and Security

It seems that not many software developers are interested in security. One reason may be that security is a negative feature. Another could be that developers don’t see how security relates to their daily activities. Let’s look at a detailed example that sheds some light on this relation.

Example: Crashing Tetris

My employer, EMC, takes security seriously. Besides the annual security awareness training that every employee has to take, software developers are required to take additional security courses, so that they understand the Security Development Lifecycle. In one of those courses, security guru Hugh Thompson tells the following story.

While on an airplane, he found a Tetris game in the on-board entertainment system. The game showed the next blocks to drop in a preview pane. The game’s settings had up and down buttons to increase or decrease the number of preview blocks.

Using the up button, the number could only be increased to four. However, using the telephone key pad, Thompson could enter 5 and get it accepted.

No higher digits were accepted from the telephone, but now that the number was five, the up button on the screen happily increased the number further.

He increased the number all the way up to 127. The next time he pressed the up button, the screen went black. And so did the screen next to him. And everywhere else in the plane. Zero availability.

Exploits Use Vulnerabilities, Which Come From Bugs

How did this happen? The answer is simple: there were some bugs in the application that were abused in a systematic manner. In the security world, such a bug is referred to as a vulnerability, and the abuse of them to decrease security is known as an exploit.

There is nothing inherently “security related” about vulnerabilities. In the example, the first mistake was that the two interfaces each had their own logic for manipulating the model, a clear violation of DRY. The second was the off-by-one error in the telephone interface. Next, the logic for the up button only checked for the specific boundary value four, instead of for four and anything larger. The final mistake was a missing check for integer overflow. These four more or less innocent bugs combined to form a vulnerability that Thompson exploited.

Certain bugs are more likely to lead to vulnerabilities than others. Two notorious examples are Buffer Overflow and SQL Injection. Luckily, many of such bugs are easily prevented. Good tools and a little awareness on the side of the developer go a long way.

Conclusion: Less Bugs Means More Secure

If vulnerabilities come from bugs, then we need a relentless focus on preventing and eliminating bugs in order to make our applications more secure.

With that insight, we’re firmly back in the land of software development. Security isn’t the big scary monster we developers sometimes think it is.