[4772] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: Latest Java hole is Netscape/Sun only
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas Reardon)
Tue Mar 11 18:51:30 1997
From: Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>
To: "'Matthew R. Hamilton'" <mhamilto@diablo.safb.af.mil>
Cc: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 12:53:30 -0800
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
You choose to equate cross-platform with open, I don't. I also don't
think Solaris, HP-UX, DEC Unix, etc are different platforms, no more
than WinNT and Win95 are different.
Anyway, this thread should end here, not approp for this list, I
apologize for introducing the digression. Feel free to email me
directly.
-Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew R. Hamilton [SMTP:mhamilto@diablo.safb.af.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 7:43 AM
> To: Thomas Reardon
> Cc: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
> Subject: RE: Latest Java hole is Netscape/Sun only
>
>
> On 9 Mar, Thomas Reardon wrote:
> > >Java is open and platform independent. Java has been tested and
> > review by many
> > >security expert and researchers.
> >
> > Let be clear: Java is platform-independent to some extent (I mean,
> you
> > need similar hardware, 256-color graphics, etc for just about every
> > 'plaform' JDK 1.1 works on), but IT IS NOT OPEN. It is proprietary
> Sun
> > technology. I am not trying to shift the argument, but I want that
> on
>
> You may be right that most of what we know as JAVA is a proprietary
> Sun
> product that they have a trademark and such on. However it is as the
> buzzwords go "an OPEM system" for the plain and simple fact that Sun
> and others are working to port the Java Virtual Machine to as many
> Operating Systems as possible. While the VM may be specific to a
> particular type of hardware and OS, the JAVA byte-code is far from
> being OS dependent (as long as the VM is supported by the OS). If you
> are to go on about things not being OPEN, then why not include
> Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Last time I visited Microsoft's web
> page to see if they had decided to make IE3.0 availiable for Windows
> 3.1 (which IMHO took way too long, and now work has finaly made the
> move to win95) the whole hype about IE3.0 was that it was
> an"OPEN-CROSS
> SYSTEMS Web Browser". This made me laugh, because if it was such an
> OPEM-CROSS SYSTEM as your people there proclaimed it to be then I
> would
> have seen versions of the browser for platforms other than Windows95,
> NT, 3.1, and Macintosh, such as Linux, Solaris, Hp, Dec, Vax, like you
> do for Netscape. So I am sorry but your argument just falls flat on
> its
> face.
>
>
> > the record since we are constantly getting beaten up on what is open
> vs.
> > closed.
> >
> > -Thomas
> >
> >
>
> --
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |Matthew R. Hamilton | "There is no reason in the world to |
> |mhamilto@diablo.safb.af.mil | fight, however there is every reason|
> |Systems Analyst (miSOFT Inc.) | in the world to know how to fight." |
> |Sigma Nu alum Kent State Univ.| Sun Tzu _The_Art_of_War_ |
> |#include <disclaimer.h> | |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
