On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
Ray Arachelian wrote:
Until Microsoft secures ActiveX in it's own sandbox and doesn't allow it to access things it shouldn't, it's not cool.
I do not understand how one can secure ActiveX.
Simple. Check out Windows NT, under NT you can write/run programs as services which log in as an account. When you do this, that service program is limited to the security restrictions of that account. If you're using the NTFS file system and give that account access only to one directory, it can't access anything but that directory. (If you're using FAT, this isn't true and the program can read/write/delete anything it wants.) Works quite well. It can be done under 95 but Microsoft will have to write a Sandbox Virtual Machine (a Virtual x86 session whose API's are filtered to prevent access to certain things like the file system, and disables direct I/O.) Not that easy under '95, but it already exists for NT. The problem is how to deal with DLL's. You don't know all features/functions of all DLL's. It may be possible to write a DLL that runs outside the sandbox and can act as a proxy to the file system, so it's iffy unless you limit the DLL's and services that ActiveX apps talk to, and make them all live inside the sandbox. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you're gonna die, die with your|./|\. ..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|boots on; If you're gonna try, just |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!" |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================