Re: ActiveX security hole reported.

• To: Stephen Cobb <stephen@iu.net">stephen@iu.net>, trei@process.com
• Subject: Re: ActiveX security hole reported.
• From: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@Clorox.com>
• Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:35:38 -0700
• Cc: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
• In-Reply-To: Stephen Cobb <stephen@iu.net> "Re: ActiveX security hole reported." (Aug 13, 17:57)
• References: <1.5.4.32.19960813215752.00592ca0@iu.net>
• Reply-To: Paul Rarey <Paul.Rarey@Clorox.com>

Folks...,

Nice remedy... (I'm quite secure in the knowledge that) Java has a substantially 
better security model than ActiveX {A/X}. --- Ooooo... I see some disputes! 
Let's get them on the table - because that's how security gets better! 

Point me to where this topic might be better discussed.... It's dear (deer?..:-) 
to my heart.

I would be quite content to capitulate the whole issue if MS sicks with the 
"A/X-In-Java" solution. Then all the community as to do, is to follow the Java 
security model. Let MS/X do it's thing, but "do Java security" after "A/X" 
releases the object, *do* the Jave thing!


-- 

Regards...,

[ psr ]
 x2160

• Re: ActiveX security hole reported.
• From: Stephen Cobb <stephen@iu.net>
• From:

• Previous: Re: ActiveX security hole reported.
• Next: Re: ActiveX security hole reported.
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread