Why java is very secure

[siva_vs_siva]

why java is very secure.. i need some different ans

[Zack]

I wouldn't really call Java secure. The data is compiled into .class files which can be read by a decompiler. If you open a .class file with Notepad, you can actually see names of classes, methods, and variables (depending on the compiler). With the right decompiler and enough time on your hands, you can get pretty close to a workable source.

Java is more secure than a language such as Python, where the source to your program is immediately provided. No Python program can be run without the source code present on the user's computer. In this particular way, Java is more secure as the .class files are somewhat obfuscated from a user's perspective.

However, Java is not as secure as something like C++ which is compiled directly into native bytecode for the processor. Even then, you can use a reverse engineering process to boil it down to ASM and get parts of the source.

In short, anything done by software can be undone by software--that is, what your compiler does (turns your source into actual code) can be reversed (turned back into a source).

[Eranga]

I've two reasons related to that.

1. Java does not allocate direct pointers to memory, like C/C++. This makes it impossible to accidentally reference memory that belongs to other programs or the kernel. If you know more about memory management then you can see how this is really useful.

2. The Java compiler catches more compile-time errors; other languages will compile programs that produce unpredictable results. Specially with the C/C++, like int value start over once the upper limit is exceeded.

[Tolls]

Define "secure".

To be honest I doubt it's anymore secure (depnding on your definition of secure) than any other language...

[Eranga]

For me, defining the how secure a language is depend on each other, in such a way that how and for what it is using. Points just came to my mind relevant to the title here, more like features I like to work on with than another language. It's all about the comparisons, and depends on me. I guess same for others too.

[Tolls]

That was mainly aimed at the OP, since it was their question.
"secure" can mean anything...and to me security is to do with authentication and authorisation, which is why I say it is no different to almost any other language.

Pointers and memory management are, to me, to do with likely reliability of the end product, as well as maintainability.

[Eranga]

True, that's why I think that most of the time, what we think as secure stuff more likely the features where some languages make more reliable than the other.

But in general those kind of points treated as secure features.

[Zack]

I think he's referring to security of the code (i.e. how easily it can be read by a third party). I suppose we need the OP to clarify what exactly he means by "security" before speculating further...

[Eranga]

But no response from OP after starting the thread. ;)

[Eranga]

Anyway, as I said earlier security is kind of debating topic in many cases. We can see what OP really thinks of it and move with further discussion.

[Tolls]

I expect there's a cross post on some other site somewhere...

[Eranga]

Could be. And if so it's discourage to comment here again.