]Both of you are correct if you look carefully at the assumptions. Rich ]assumes that you have a 'malicious compiler'. Godmar is right that Java ]does not utilize pointers in the byte code. What would make the entire ]scenario work is a malicious interpreter or a 'NotJava Browser'(TM) that ]allowed malicious code to be executed. Couple a bad compiler and a bad ]interpreter and you are in buisness (nasty business that is). Yes. And if you also let an intruder in your house, have them sit at your computer with your newborn child in the room and go on vacation, things can get really, really nasty. Sort of like when you execute untrusted code in an untrusted environment... -- Benjamin Java Products Group
On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Benjamin Renaud wrote:
Yes. And if you also let an intruder in your house, have them sit at your computer with your newborn child in the room and go on vacation, things can get really, really nasty.
I guess that wu-ftp never was distributed with security holes. Never heard of anyone distributing maliscious lookalike packages. How many folks do you think downloaded the linux-JDK and use it without checking it out first. That takes care of the compiler. And distributing bad netscape or other browsers is childs play. So I guess your newborn is relevant. Stick to your belief that Java is secure because, darn it, it just would be hard for anyone to do bad things with it. Please.
-- Benjamin Java Products Group
Matt
| On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, Benjamin Renaud wrote: | | > Yes. And if you also let an intruder in your house, have them sit at | > your computer with your newborn child in the room and go on vacation, | > things can get really, really nasty. | | I guess that wu-ftp never was distributed with security holes. Never | heard of anyone distributing maliscious lookalike packages. How many | folks do you think downloaded the linux-JDK and use it without checking | it out first. That takes care of the compiler. And distributing bad | netscape or other browsers is childs play. So I guess your newborn is | relevant. | | Stick to your belief that Java is secure because, darn it, it just would | be hard for anyone to do bad things with it. Please. I think what we should worry about is the second-order effects of Java; how will the world look like when Java is everywhere? We should also not discount the "social" effects; what will people do to try to circumvent the "stupid" safeguards that Java will be distributed with. I have earlier heard the opinion from the Java team (I believe) that this is not "Java's fault", and I can understand that standpoint. My opinion is still that the net result (pun intended!) is even weaker security, because of these two reasons above. (In my darker moments, I feel that the whole field of computer security is in a major crisis. Ever heard of the Emperor's New Clothes? ;-)) Just some mumbling from, Christian Wettergren
participants (3)
-
br＠scndprsn.Eng.Sun.COM -
Christian Wettergren -
Matt Miszewski