Just continuing this for my own learning experience as I still don't see it. I also don't see why the outputs from the commited code are OK, on testing I'm getting things like: [55, 107, 73, 50, 87, 100, 119, 49, 121, 76, 56, 43, 104, 48, 112, 105, 107, 102, 111, 88, 87, 73, 98, 113, 120, 52, 85, 61]. I expected this to be a string made up of different characters to form a random password, what looks like an array converted to a string.
With the char set know, it would be easy to decode the password than the > previous encoded version. So the argument being put forward is we know the charset that makes up the password? This is true but we know the charset for a base64 string, its A-Z,a-z,0-9,and +. Even still, with the charset exposed I don't see how this is an issue(bare with my math here). Its a roughly 72 charset generating a password of length 20. Thats 72^20 different possible combinations. If we say it takes a second to brute each combination you are looking at roughly (4.445×10^29) years to test all combinations. ( http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=72%5E20+seconds+to+years ) The function in question is suppose to return a string that acts as the password given to AccountService to create the new user account.... on testing the code that has been committed into the 4.3 branch I'm just getting back stuff like the following: [55, 107, 73, 50, 87, 100, 119, 49, 121, 76, 56, 43, 104, 48, 112, 105, 107, 102, 111, 88, 87, 73, 98, 113, 120, 52, 85, 61] I executed the test manually by just pulling the code out and running it alone from command line: https://gist.github.com/imduffy15/ae7a809aa7bb6cb198e3. Regards, Ian On 31 January 2014 04:38, Rajani Karuturi <rajani.karut...@citrix.com>wrote: > With the char set know, it would be easy to decode the password than the > previous encoded version. > This is a concern because even for ldap users we also check authentication > against db. > > Thanks a lot for taking Daan and Ian. > > > ~Rajani > > > > On 31-Jan-2014, at 1:20 am, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Sorry about the delay in replying to this have been doing exams at uni > all > > week. > > > > Daan's change looks to change Rajani concern. > > > > Might be me being naive but I fail to understand the concern fully... > > The given character selection was roughly 72 with a string of length 20. > If > > my math is correct thats 72^20 different possible combinations... > > > > Anyways, thanks for taking care of this Daan. > > > > On 30 January 2014 13:28, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Guys, > >> > >> I found two reported issues of category 'scary'. To satify Rajuri's > >> concerns I would like to revert Ian's commit and checkin two changes > >> that change returning > >> byte[].toString() > >> into > >> Arrays.toString(byte[]) > >> on return statements of generatePassword methods. > >> > >> if no objections come in within a few..., > >> Daan > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > >> wrote: > >>> Animesh, Ian, > >>> > >>> Can you comment on this? > >>> > >>> I couldn't find any findbugs issues of the the scariest kind in > >>> yesterdays version of the 4.3 branch. What was solved that needs to go > >>> in in spite of Rajuri's reservations? > >>> > >>> thanks, > >>> Daan > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Daan Hoogland < > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> Sorry Rajani, > >>>> > >>>> I had seen no reaction to Ian's explenation and the request by > >>>> Animesh to pull it so I just did. let me look into it for a minute > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:36 AM, Rajani Karuturi > >>>> <rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>>> I see that the commit 9776e1af1c92486f5081b1ee8fa95cf0edb86b97 is > >> already pushed to 4.3. I don't see any response on my concern as well. > >>>>> Is it just me or anyone else sees a security issue with the generate > >> password change? > >>>>> Ian/Animesh/Daan, can you please respond? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> ~Rajani > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 29-Jan-2014, at 10:59 am, Rajani Karuturi < > >> rajani.karut...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Ian, > >>>>>> Before it is pushed to 4.3, can you fix the generate password change > >> like i suggested in the other mail? This current change would make it > less > >> secure. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> ~Rajani > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 29-Jan-2014, at 8:03 am, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Animesh, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tested all those changes to detail. Those lines were removed due to > >>>>>>> unexpected behavior that I had not spotted until now. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They were suppose to allow for better fall over between multiple > >> domain > >>>>>>> controllers, how ever they were causing caching to occur. This > meant > >> if a > >>>>>>> users password was reset in LDAP the old password was still > allowing > >> login > >>>>>>> for a limited time. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Please pull the changes forward, > >>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ian. > >>>>>>> On 29 Jan 2014 00:07, "Animesh Chaturvedi" < > >> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If I look at this commit for example > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;h=92b4f66d73562e4211d2d787554ff229dbeb5705 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It removes the two lines from LdapContextFactory.java > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> environment.put("com.sun.jndi.ldap.read.timeout", "500");- > >>>>>>>> environment.put("com.sun.jndi.ldap.connect.pool", "true"); > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Is that reported by find bug? I don't know this code so not sure > >> if it is > >>>>>>>> intentional or not ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The point is there may be unintended risks in allowing late > changes. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:35 PM > >>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Are you sure all of the ones are needed. A quick look at 20+ > >> commits from > >>>>>>>> Daan show many formatting changes that may not be necessary and > >> hinder > >>>>>>>> quick review. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:16 PM > >>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 28 jan. 2014, at 23:50, Animesh Chaturvedi < > >>>>>>>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:37 PM > >>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>>>>>> Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hey Animesh, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Not in agreement here. These are squashed bugs and we want as > less > >> bugs > >>>>>>>> in the release as possible. > >>>>>>>>> [Animesh] I understand but once we enter RC phase we only limit > >>>>>>>> important fixes. I have pulled in 2 commits from yours and 1 from > >> Daan. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> We limited our fixes to only the important issues that we found. > >> The other > >>>>>>>> 6000 issues between coverity and findbugs are still being triaged > >> and will > >>>>>>>> probably not make it into this release. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This is why we test any RC before we release it. > >>>>>>>>> [Animesh] Of course but timing is a bit off, if this was done a > >> month > >>>>>>>> back it would have been fine. > >>>>>>>>> I say include all the big fixes we have in the release. If that > >> means > >>>>>>>> more testing before we cut the RC then that is what it is. I can't > >>>>>>>> rightfully vote for a release with known issues with existing > fixes. > >>>>>>>>> [Animesh] Any release will have known issues, if we have fixes > but > >> can't > >>>>>>>> be sure on regression impact then we have to make a choice. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Agreed, but we just don't agree on what that choice should be yet > >> ;-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Quality over release schedule would be my vote then. > >>>>>>>>> [Animesh] But why so late? Why was this activity not planned > early > >> on? I > >>>>>>>> have been reminding community to call out issues early on since > like > >>>>>>>> mid-December. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On November 4 I sent the mail to the dev list that static code > >> analysis > >>>>>>>> (coverity) found 6000+ issues that needed to be triaged. I worked > >> on quite > >>>>>>>> a few with my colleagues, but it's a big task for just the four of > >> us. > >>>>>>>> Findbugs just helped us to quickly identify the real scary issues > >> among > >>>>>>>> them. > >>>>>>>> So I agree that the timing is less than ideal, but we should do > our > >> utmost > >>>>>>>> best to ship the highest quality piece of software we can. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>> Hugo > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 28 jan. 2014, at 18:48, Animesh Chaturvedi < > >>>>>>>> animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Folks these issues reported by find-bugs have existed for some > >> time. I > >>>>>>>> am not confident in picking them up now for 4.3 as it may break > >> code that > >>>>>>>> assumed old way of working. We can take them up for 4.3 > maintenance > >>>>>>>> release. I wish we had done this exercise and not waited until > now. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I will pick Hugo's commit for which he called -1. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>>>> Animesh > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>> From: Trippie [mailto:trip...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Hugo > >> Trippaers > >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:29 AM > >>>>>>>>>> To: dev > >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hey Animesh, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I agree with Daan here. We focussed on the bugs with a findbugs > >>>>>>>> annotation of scariest. I think that would warrant them to be > >> included in > >>>>>>>> the 4.3 release, so please cherry-pick them all. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Hugo > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 28 jan. 2014, at 09:32, Daan Hoogland < > >> daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Animesh, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I took up a lot of messages from findbugs in the server package > >> over > >>>>>>>>>>> the weekend. Not that I will attach my soul to the shipping of > my > >>>>>>>>>>> fixes but some of them are == vs eq and some are really nasty > >>>>>>>>>>> nullpointer issues (a chack after first use is very common). > You > >> can > >>>>>>>>>>> cherry-pick them or not. I don't think you should leave any of > >> them > >>>>>>>>>>> behind. Even with David being right we should go against him at > >>>>>>>>>>> every convenient time, running the risk of being called his > wife. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Ian Duffy <i...@ianduffy.ie> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Animesh, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you cherry-pick the below commit from from 4.3-forward to > >> 4.3 > >>>>>>>> branch? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Fix findbug issues within LDAP authenticator commit > >>>>>>>>>>>> 92b4f66d73562e4211d2d787554ff229dbeb5705 > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ian > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 January 2014 03:48, Animesh Chaturvedi > >>>>>>>>>>>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo I was reviewing your commits to 4.3-forward and looked > at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> your commits > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> h = f18c5a1910b6370585a1d61638b8310c3ecba5ef > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commit; > >>>>>>>>>>>>> h = 60ac12780bfa1604902a89d5dc7937a8b9334e0d > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you want the last one which has fixes for NetUtils > and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> XenServerStorageMotionStrategy for which you had put -1 in > >> first > >>>>>>>>>>>>> RC but the commit includes more files. Can you make limited > >>>>>>>>>>>>> changes directly to 4.3? I want to build another RC later > >> tonight > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto: > animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com > >> ] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 1:30 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We need to fix the most important ones for 4.3. There may be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> assumptions in the code which we may not know and may get > >> broken > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if these issues are fixed late. I will pull in the one Hugo > >> casted > >>>>>>>>>>>>> his > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -1 for the first vote, any others? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 11:46 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So just curious if I am the only one concerned about a ton of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> fixes going in at the last minute. If the fixes are for > serious > >>>>>>>>>>>>> bugs and we have consensus around their severity being high > >> enough, > >>>>>>>> indeed lets fix things. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My concern is that much of the QA we do is manual; and while > we > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are getting better; fixing tons of things at the last minute > >> may > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have unintended consequences that we don't know about and > won't > >>>>>>>> easily find. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I yearn for the day when our automated testing is broad > enough > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that we can do fixes right up to the wire and know that > things > >>>>>>>>>>>>> still work, I am just not sure that I have confidence that we > >> are > >>>>>>>> there yet. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? I am being paranoid? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> --David > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:11 AM, Daan Hoogland > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh, I commented the once i made yesterday with > findbugs: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I allready send a few and will get you a list of the rest > >> later > >>>>>>>> today. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Animesh Chaturvedi > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good job fellas. I see a number of commits 20+ into > >> 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>> branch. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are their specific commits you want me to pick up out of > these? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animesh > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:41 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Findbugs report on 4.3-forward > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't get very far last night and will be looking at the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server > >>>>>>>>>>>>> package again this afternoon. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bon appétit, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:36 AM, Ian Duffy < > i...@ianduffy.ie > >>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixed the issues highlighted in the ldap user > authentication > >>>>>>>> package. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have pushed to 4.3-forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ian > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 January 2014 22:26, Daan Hoogland > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or reply to this mail with the filename you are working > on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll be looking at the server package as it seems to > >> contain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the most issues. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Hugo Trippaers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <h...@trippaers.nl> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also added a job to master with the Findbugs report > >> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cobertura code coverage report. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good stuff, we have a 12% coverage of our classes with > >> unit > >>>>>>>> tests. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Huge > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvement over the last release where we had 4% iirc. > We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 306 reports from Findbugs, of which the majority are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internationalization > >>>>>>>>>>>>> issues. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (String.getBytes without charset mostly). On the coverity > >> site > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6000+ issues still open, but at least that number is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6000+ relatively stable, we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix as much issues as we introduce and it's untuned so we > >> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume a large number of false positives there. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that on average the automated tools tell us that > >> code > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quality is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improving, which a good thing. Combined with the > functional > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing and the simulator build we can prove that we are > >> doing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite well on the code quality angle. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/build-master-slowbuild/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25 jan. 2014, at 14:13, Daan Hoogland > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H Hugo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll spend some time on it tonight. Do you have a work > >> load > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution scheme or is it random access? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Hugo Trippaers > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <h...@trippaers.nl> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've made Jenkins run the findbugs analysis on > >> 4.3-forward. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somebody who is willing to help triage the findings? > Maybe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is some stuff that we need to fix? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the url is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> http://jenkins.buildacloud.org/job/cloudstack-4.3-forward-mave > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> n > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bui > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ld > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /3/findbugsResult/ > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hugo > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >> > >
