In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/11/2007
at 06:42 AM, Steve Comstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'm not sure I follow you there, Shmuel. If an installation writes
>their own applications (not so much today as in the past, due to
>pre-packaged off-the-shelf apps), that's user-supplied code. Or
do you mean "user" in the end-user kind of interpretation?
End user.
>Ah, wait. do you mean, for example, macros in Word documents?
That's the classic example, but there are many others. M$ seems to be
in love with the concept of active documents and never takes security
into account when they extend a format to include executable content.
BTW, if you do some research into this area it might be the basis for
a useful course. Assuming, of course, that the people who need it most
are aware of the fact.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
