[5208] in bugtraq
Re: Active X exploit.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Holland)
Wed Aug 27 19:54:56 1997
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:10:20 -0400
Reply-To: David Holland <dholland@EECS.HARVARD.EDU>
From: David Holland <dholland@EECS.HARVARD.EDU>
To: BUGTRAQ@NETSPACE.ORG
In-Reply-To: <28347281A2B5CF119AB000805FD4186603B6F421@RED-77-MSG.dns.microsoft.com> from "Paul Leach" at Aug 26,
97 04:55:47 pm
> What ActiveX doesn't have is a sandbox. That's different than saying
> that there's no security.
>
> ActiveX controls are _signed_ DLLs. You run the code if you trust the
> signer. If you do, you know that no one has tampered with the code since
> the signer signed it.
Anyone who has followed this list for more than a month should realize
that code written with the best of intentions, and not tampered with,
is still routinely full of security holes.
On the other hand, I can send you an unsigned piece of code that does
exactly what it says it does and contains no security holes
whatsoever.
Authentication of code is an entirely different problem from security
of code.
> That's more secure than what I buy at the store.
Not really.
--
- David A. Holland | VINO project home page:
dholland@eecs.harvard.edu | http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/vino
