Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #23487
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-04-17 10:54 -0700 |
| References | <kkknq8$3u2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <5dntm85s55qmuh8cort7l0uuji2mpo9eav@4ax.com> |
| Message-ID | <1111e968-41af-460b-a065-898190221845@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? |
| From | paul.cager@gmail.com |
On Wednesday, 17 April 2013 18:37:00 UTC+1, Roedy Green wrote: > This makes no sense. A digitally signed Applet does dangerous things. > > Unsigned ones do not. I think the problem is that there have been bugs in Java's security model such that an unsigned applet could exploit a bug and do dangerous things.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
> Sandboxed power == More secure??? Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-04-17 07:45 +0800
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-16 22:12 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-04-16 19:25 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-16 22:30 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-04-17 09:14 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-04-17 13:09 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-04-17 11:37 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-04-17 15:49 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-17 19:10 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-17 19:13 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-04-17 21:12 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-17 21:34 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-17 21:39 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-17 19:06 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-04-18 03:04 +0200
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-04-17 10:37 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? paul.cager@gmail.com - 2013-04-17 10:54 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-17 19:02 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-04-25 10:09 +0800
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-24 22:30 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-26 22:11 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-04-26 20:05 -0700
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-27 22:23 -0400
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2013-04-28 12:09 +0100
Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-04-28 09:43 -0400
csiph-web