Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-04-06 Thread Dinis Cruz
Eric Swanson wrote: What we need now is focus, energy and commitment to create a business environment where it is possible (and profitable) the creation, deployment and maintenance of applications executed in secure sandboxes. Traditionally, the quickest answer to a

Re: [OWASP-LEADERS] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-29 Thread Stephen de Vries
Hi Dinis, On 29 Mar 2006, at 05:52, Dinis Cruz wrote: Thanks for confirming this (I wonder how many other other Java developers are aware of this (especially the ones not focused on security)). Most I've worked with aren't really aware of the security manager, never mind bytecode

Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-29 Thread Gunnar Peterson
This comes back to that great concept called 'Faith-based' Security (see Gunnar Peterson's post http://1raindrop.typepad.com/1_raindrop/2005/11/net_and_java_fa.html ), which is when people are told so many times that something is secure, that that they believe that it MUST be secure. Some

Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-28 Thread Dinis Cruz
Jeff, as you can see by Stephen de Vries's response on this thread, you are wrong in your assumption that most Java code (since 1.2) must go through the Verifier (this is what I was sure it was happening since I remembered reading that most Java code executed in real-world applications is not

Re: [OWASP-LEADERS] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-28 Thread Dinis Cruz
Hello Eric (comments inline) Eric Swanson wrote: Because I believe that Microsoft will never be as cooperative with .NET and the developer community as Sun is with Java, is there an opportunity for another company to step up to the plate on Microsoft's behalf? There is definitely an

Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-27 Thread Dinis Cruz
Hi Kevin Indeed this is somewhat surprising that there is no byte-code verification in place, especially for strong typing, since when you think about it, this is not too different than the "unmanaged" code case. Well there is some byte coding verification. For example if you

Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-27 Thread ljknews
At 2:34 AM +0100 3/27/06, Dinis Cruz wrote: PS: For the Microsofties that are reading this (if any) sorry for the irony and I hope I am not offending anyone, but WHEN are you going to join this conversion? (i.e. reply to this posts) I can only see 4 reasons for your silence: a) you

Re: [OWASP-LEADERS] Re: [Owasp-dotnet] RE: [SC-L] 4 Questions: Latest IE vulnerability, Firefox vs IE security, Uservs Admin risk profile, and browsers coded in 100% Managed Verifiable code

2006-03-27 Thread Stephen de Vries
On 27 Mar 2006, at 11:02, Jeff Williams wrote: I am not a Java expert, but I think that the Java Verifier is NOT used on Apps that are executed with the Security Manager disabled (which I believe is the default setting) or are loaded from a local disk (see ... applets loaded via the