Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #23488
| From | markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: > Sandboxed power == More secure??? |
| Date | 2013-04-17 11:37 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <kkmq0l$q94$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <kkknq8$3u2$1@speranza.aioe.org> <516e04f5$0$32117$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <kkmhjk$lkp$1@dont-email.me> <kkmkq0$g1f$1@dont-email.me> |
On 4/17/2013 10:09 AM, Eric Sosman wrote: > Time to get my eyesight checked: When I read your post it > looked like a claim that Flash is secure! Well, you should get your eyesight checked. Java is currently exploited far more often and far worse than Flash has been. It's been all over the security related websites, and even some for the general public. I see what you're saying, but Flash and Java don't really compare right now: things currently really bad for Java. Example: <http://www.securityweek.com/unique-challenges-controlling-java-exploits> In short complaining that Flash really isn't secure is to complain about the mote in Flash's eye while ignoring the beam in Java's. You still have a point though. I use No-Script and both JavaScript and Flash are blocked by default on my system. I guess I was referring to the fact that the vendors don't block their own systems by default. I also like the UI for NoScript better than Java's security pop-up. It's better integrated into the browser and OS, and provides wider options than just "permanently allow this page." Which I think is all that the Java plug-in has in terms of options. > (Yesterday I applied security updates for both Java and > Flash, also AIR. Any bets on which requires its next update > sooner?) I doubt frequency of updates correlates to security. I'd guess that company culture and resources correlate more strongly.
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