Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #23480

Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure???

X-Received	by 10.224.18.132 with SMTP id w4mr3557039qaa.1.1366165531326; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received	by 10.50.128.105 with SMTP id nn9mr88678igb.17.1366165531290; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path	csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!cj1no2582577qab.0!news-out.google.com!ef9ni42441qab.0!nntp.google.com!ca1no48217597qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Date	Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To	<516e04f5$0$32117$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
Complaints-To	groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info	glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.28.149.29; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T
NNTP-Posting-Host	69.28.149.29
References	<kkknq8$3u2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <516e04f5$0$32117$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
User-Agent	G2/1.0
MIME-Version	1.0
Message-ID	<bea8c676-96ab-457d-9ffb-ba9706f3e372@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure???
From	Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com>
Injection-Date	Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:25:31 +0000
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding	quoted-printable
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:23480

Show key headers only | View raw

Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Richard Maher wrote:
>> Perhaps the most significant change will be that, in the default
>> setting, sites will not be able to force the small programs known as
>> Java applets to run in the browser unless they have been digitally
>> signed. Users can override that only if they click to acknowledge the
>> risk, Rizvi said.
>> Read more:
>> http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/oracle-fixes-42-holes-in-java-to-revive-confidence-20130417-2hz6n.html#ixzz2QfmbSO5B
> 
>> Disbelief!

Really?

Rather overblown, that reaction.
 
> They want users to confirm that they want to run an applet.
> It somewhat protects against users being infected without noticing if
> a malicious site uses a zero day vulnerability.
> 
> And there has been a few of those.
> 
> Chrome already prompts every time.
> 
> A bit frustrating for user experience,

Really?

> but Oracle has deemed it necessary.

But only for unsigned applets.

Tempest in a teapot.

-- 
Lew

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