Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #28910 > unrolled thread
| Started by | w.tom.adams@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-07-02 10:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-07-14 13:39 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
How to make my java applets more user friendly w.tom.adams@gmail.com - 2014-07-02 10:41 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-07-02 14:01 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-02 21:14 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-07-02 23:00 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly w.tom.adams@gmail.com - 2014-07-03 06:01 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-07-03 08:54 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-06 12:20 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-07-03 10:27 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-11 21:30 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-07-11 18:22 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-12 23:19 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-07-11 17:34 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-12 23:21 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-06 12:23 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 09:59 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:28 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-07-08 12:37 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-07-09 19:33 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-07-09 20:01 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-07-10 20:24 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:30 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-06 12:12 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-07-05 16:24 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2014-07-03 06:37 +0800
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly w.tom.adams@gmail.com - 2014-07-03 06:07 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly w.tom.adams@gmail.com - 2014-07-03 06:13 -0700
News Reader (was: Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly) Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-07-04 08:02 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-07-03 21:07 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Tom Adams <tadamsmar@gmail.com> - 2014-07-04 02:55 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-06 12:26 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2014-07-11 19:43 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-11 20:58 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-11 22:29 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-07-11 23:01 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly "Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> - 2014-07-11 23:13 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-12 11:07 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-07-14 13:11 +0100
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2014-07-14 18:36 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-07-14 19:32 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:09 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:03 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-08-19 22:18 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:43 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2014-08-20 06:50 +0800
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 19:01 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-12 13:47 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-12 11:08 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-13 00:36 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-12 21:03 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-13 01:24 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:12 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-08-19 21:23 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-08-20 10:31 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2014-08-21 06:17 +0800
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-14 22:46 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-14 23:23 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-15 10:49 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-15 13:13 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:21 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-08-19 21:27 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-08-20 10:32 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:17 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-12 11:04 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2014-07-13 07:30 +0800
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Tom Adams <tadamsmar@gmail.com> - 2014-07-13 03:15 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-13 10:49 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-13 10:55 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly w.tom.adams@gmail.com - 2014-07-14 06:48 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Tom Adams <tadamsmar@gmail.com> - 2014-07-15 08:16 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Tom Adams <tadamsmar@gmail.com> - 2014-08-15 06:29 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Tom Adams <tadamsmar@gmail.com> - 2014-07-13 15:54 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-07-05 16:20 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-07-05 16:22 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-07 10:28 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2014-07-07 17:29 +0800
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-07 11:54 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 10:01 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-08 12:21 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 11:02 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-08 13:13 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 12:27 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-07-08 14:28 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 12:36 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2014-07-08 08:58 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-08 13:21 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-07-09 13:11 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-09 11:48 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2014-07-10 14:10 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly castal00n <casta-.l00n_3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 12:22 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 15:57 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2014-07-10 18:09 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 16:32 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2014-07-10 19:20 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 17:32 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-11 21:31 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-11 22:45 +0000
[OT] posting histories? (was Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-12 23:24 +0000
Re: [OT] posting histories? (was Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly) ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-13 00:38 +0000
Re: [OT] posting histories? (was Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly) blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2014-07-14 22:44 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:41 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 18:50 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 19:44 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 23:50 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:34 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:33 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 18:40 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:45 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 18:51 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-07-10 17:14 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 22:20 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-07-10 18:47 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 23:51 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 19:46 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly ĵess stone <jess.st0ne@gmail.com> - 2014-07-10 23:54 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-07-14 13:32 +0100
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-14 18:37 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-07-08 09:00 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-08 21:40 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2014-07-08 15:03 -0500
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2014-07-09 00:28 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-07-10 14:31 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2014-07-11 12:33 +0200
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-07-11 12:15 -0700
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2014-08-19 16:27 -0400
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> - 2014-08-19 21:29 +0000
Re: How to make my java applets more user friendly "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2014-07-14 13:39 +0100
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | w.tom.adams@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 10:41 -0700 |
| Subject | How to make my java applets more user friendly |
| Message-ID | <04c1fe18-b023-4f45-8fa3-3c2f78cba69e@googlegroups.com> |
I developed a web site www.poologic.com that depends on a couple of Java applets (Poologic Calculator and ROI Calculator). The web site has become increasingly user unfriendly and hard to use due the Oracle's efforts to address security and the fact that applets are going out of style. (I developed the applets in 1999, maybe they were going out of style already back then, but I did not notice it till more recently.) I am trying to figure out what to do. 1. Try to get them certified. But that costs and does not solve the problem of browsers and tablets that don't have support. I suppose I could live with support in limited browsers, but I am not sure how to figure out which browsers will continue to support Java. 2. Learn javascript and rewrite them in javascript. Time consuming. 3. Use some technology that compiles them in javascript or use a JVM written in java script. I just started looking into this, not sure how feasible and practical it is. Not sure which technology to pursue. 4. Leave the applets as-is and continue to make users jump through hoops to use the the unsigned applets. But Oracle or all browser may ban unsigned applets. No sure which way to go. Anyone solved the same problem or have any insight on this problem? Is there a browser that is likely to support applets long-term?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 14:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lp1hd2$gb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28910 |
On 7/2/2014 1:41 PM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote:
> I developed a web site www.poologic.com that depends on a couple of Java applets (Poologic Calculator and ROI Calculator).
>
> The web site has become increasingly user unfriendly and hard to use due the Oracle's efforts to address security and the fact that applets are going out of style. (I developed the applets in 1999, maybe they were going out of style already back then, but I did not notice it till more recently.)
>
> I am trying to figure out what to do.
Personally (I can't speak for others), I do not allow my
browsers to run Java: It's too risky. Were I on an intRAnet
with applets served up internally I'd be willing to run those,
but on the wild and lawless intERnet? Not for me, thanks.
So, for me (again, I can't speak for others), applets on
the Internet might as well not be there at all. Your applet,
however useful it might be, is of no use to me because I
can't/won't run it. To reach a wider audience, I think you
need to adopt a different technology.
Just a data point, personal opinion, the Secretary will
disavow all knowledge, etc., etc.
> Is there a browser that is likely to support applets long-term?
HotJava. ;-(
(Only partly in jest. Your problem really isn't "Does such a
browser exist?" but "Will the people who want to use my site run
such a browser, in an applet-accepting configuration?")
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 21:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53b4ae7d$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #28911 |
On 7/2/2014 2:01 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 7/2/2014 1:41 PM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: >> I developed a web site www.poologic.com that depends on a couple of >> Java applets (Poologic Calculator and ROI Calculator). >> >> The web site has become increasingly user unfriendly and hard to use >> due the Oracle's efforts to address security and the fact that applets >> are going out of style. (I developed the applets in 1999, maybe they >> were going out of style already back then, but I did not notice it >> till more recently.) >> >> I am trying to figure out what to do. > > Personally (I can't speak for others), I do not allow my > browsers to run Java: It's too risky. Were I on an intRAnet > with applets served up internally I'd be willing to run those, > but on the wild and lawless intERnet? Not for me, thanks. > > So, for me (again, I can't speak for others), applets on > the Internet might as well not be there at all. Your applet, > however useful it might be, is of no use to me because I > can't/won't run it. To reach a wider audience, I think you > need to adopt a different technology. Do you also disable Flash, SilverLight, JavaScript and various other code running in sandbox in browser technology? Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-02 23:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lp2h1b$pi3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28927 |
On 7/2/2014 9:14 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/2/2014 2:01 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> On 7/2/2014 1:41 PM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I developed a web site www.poologic.com that depends on a couple of
>>> Java applets (Poologic Calculator and ROI Calculator).
>>>
>>> The web site has become increasingly user unfriendly and hard to use
>>> due the Oracle's efforts to address security and the fact that applets
>>> are going out of style. (I developed the applets in 1999, maybe they
>>> were going out of style already back then, but I did not notice it
>>> till more recently.)
>>>
>>> I am trying to figure out what to do.
>>
>> Personally (I can't speak for others), I do not allow my
>> browsers to run Java: It's too risky. Were I on an intRAnet
>> with applets served up internally I'd be willing to run those,
>> but on the wild and lawless intERnet? Not for me, thanks.
>>
>> So, for me (again, I can't speak for others), applets on
>> the Internet might as well not be there at all. Your applet,
>> however useful it might be, is of no use to me because I
>> can't/won't run it. To reach a wider audience, I think you
>> need to adopt a different technology.
>
> Do you also disable Flash, SilverLight, JavaScript and
> various other code running in sandbox in browser technology?
I permit JavaScript, use "click to run" for Flash, and
don't even install Silverlight.[*]
Not sure what this has to do with applets, though.
[*] Overtly, anyhow: Who knows what Microsoft may be
sneaking into their IE patches? But since I use IE solely
for Microsoft Update, the attack surface is smallish.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | w.tom.adams@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-03 06:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00019c29-614d-4cfc-aca8-4606bee766dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #28928 |
On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote: > On 7/2/2014 9:14 PM, Arne Vajh�j wrote: > > > On 7/2/2014 2:01 PM, Eric Sosman wrote: > > >> On 7/2/2014 1:41 PM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> I developed a web site www.poologic.com that depends on a couple of > > >>> Java applets (Poologic Calculator and ROI Calculator). > > >>> > > >>> The web site has become increasingly user unfriendly and hard to use > > >>> due the Oracle's efforts to address security and the fact that applets > > >>> are going out of style. (I developed the applets in 1999, maybe they > > >>> were going out of style already back then, but I did not notice it > > >>> till more recently.) > > >>> > > >>> I am trying to figure out what to do. > > >> > > >> Personally (I can't speak for others), I do not allow my > > >> browsers to run Java: It's too risky. Were I on an intRAnet > > >> with applets served up internally I'd be willing to run those, > > >> but on the wild and lawless intERnet? Not for me, thanks. > > >> > > >> So, for me (again, I can't speak for others), applets on > > >> the Internet might as well not be there at all. Your applet, > > >> however useful it might be, is of no use to me because I > > >> can't/won't run it. To reach a wider audience, I think you > > >> need to adopt a different technology. > > > > > > Do you also disable Flash, SilverLight, JavaScript and > > > various other code running in sandbox in browser technology? > > > > I permit JavaScript, use "click to run" for Flash, and > > don't even install Silverlight.[*] > > > > Not sure what this has to do with applets, though. > > > > [*] Overtly, anyhow: Who knows what Microsoft may be > > sneaking into their IE patches? But since I use IE solely > > for Microsoft Update, the attack surface is smallish. > > > > -- > > Eric Sosman > > esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? The history seems to be that Java Applets were exploited big-time by hackers and apparently neglected by Oracle and Cert had a tantrum and now they are not a viable option. But if I converted to Javascript, could the same thing happen to Javascript. Of course it also seems that Java Applets declined relative to Javascript for other reason, not exactly sure why that happened. But I am not even sure I have the history right as to how this whole thing (unfortunate thing for my website) played out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-03 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lp3naf$f0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28930 |
On 7/3/2014 8:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: > One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as > Java Applets? There are two reasons why JavaScript could be perceived to be less vulnerable: 1. Most of the code is provided as part of the web browser, so security holes will naturally be fixed as the browser is updated, instead of waiting for another program to update. 2. The Java applet model (to me, at least) is basically taking a full platform library and ensconcing it in a sandbox by turning off every API that is suspicious. The JS model is largely creating the APIs from scratch with the browser sandbox in mind--in effect, Java tries to blacklist insecure things while JS tries to whitelist secure things. Whitelist are inherently more secure than blacklists. > The history seems to be that Java Applets were exploited big-time by > hackers and apparently neglected by Oracle and Cert had a tantrum and > now they are not a viable option. But if I converted to Javascript, > could the same thing happen to Javascript. Oracle really dropped the ball on applets. It seems that they decided that trying to provide (and maintain) a security sandbox was too hard, and instead wanted to merely require signing, which from a security standpoint, is like asking the code "are you secure?"--history has shown that users routinely ignore the contents of security dialogs, so giving a basically unrestricted sandbox to anyone who can prove authenticity (i.e., pay a few dollars to a CA) makes any claims of security really laughable. Could it happen to JavaScript as well? Possibly, but rather unlikely in my estimation. There is strong demand for client-side interactivity. Given the resistance to major players to using any other language than JS builtin to the browser, JS looks set to basically be the necessary client-side interactive language for at least a decade to come. > Of course it also seems that Java Applets declined relative to > Javascript for other reason, not exactly sure why that happened. Java applets were largely killed by Flash, I think, not JavaScript. By the late 2000's, the only Java applets I generally saw were the simple applets used to illustrate something (e.g., this is how an AVL tree balances)--most of the interactive multimedia used Flash. I think Java fell into disfavor in large measure because it is very slow to startup, and also the unsigned sandbox may have been a little too tight for some people. Flash fell into disfavor because it is unstable (I have more issues due to Flash than I do due to the browser--and I run bleeding-edge nightlies). Silverlight was born in the dying days of plugins and never had much favor to begin with. :-) -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-06 12:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53b97732$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #28933 |
On 7/3/2014 9:54 AM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: > On 7/3/2014 8:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: >> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as >> Java Applets? > > There are two reasons why JavaScript could be perceived to be less > vulnerable: > 1. Most of the code is provided as part of the web browser, so security > holes will naturally be fixed as the browser is updated, instead of > waiting for another program to update. > > 2. The Java applet model (to me, at least) is basically taking a full > platform library and ensconcing it in a sandbox by turning off every API > that is suspicious. The JS model is largely creating the APIs from > scratch with the browser sandbox in mind--in effect, Java tries to > blacklist insecure things while JS tries to whitelist secure things. > Whitelist are inherently more secure than blacklists. 2A. Not only do they try to sandbox a full Java library - they also want the user to allow the applet to go outside the sandbox (priv applet). >> The history seems to be that Java Applets were exploited big-time by >> hackers and apparently neglected by Oracle and Cert had a tantrum and >> now they are not a viable option. But if I converted to Javascript, >> could the same thing happen to Javascript. > > Oracle really dropped the ball on applets. It seems that they decided > that trying to provide (and maintain) a security sandbox was too hard, > and instead wanted to merely require signing, which from a security > standpoint, is like asking the code "are you secure?"--history has shown > that users routinely ignore the contents of security dialogs, so giving > a basically unrestricted sandbox to anyone who can prove authenticity > (i.e., pay a few dollars to a CA) makes any claims of security really > laughable. I blame SUN for not keeping the Java applet sandbox security tight. That is a problem that Oracle mostly inherited. But yes - Oracle are not very interested in applets. They just want to avoid too many "Java security issues" that could hurt their sale of expensive server side Java stuff. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-03 10:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lp3p8f$s8v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #28930 |
On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets?
Experts (I'm not one) have opined that the security models for
JavaScript and Java are fundamentally different. JavaScript (they
say) was designed from its infancy to run in a browser's sandbox,
but Java is a fully-functional general-purpose language with a
sandbox bolted on afterwards. Another way to look at this is that
JavaScript can do only what the browser itself can do, while Java
can do anything the JVM fails to prevent.
This is not to say that JavaScript is 100% secure -- plenty of
malware relies at least in part on JavaScript -- just that it's a
more limited risk than Java is. Or so say those who seem to know.
> The history seems to be that Java Applets were exploited big-time by hackers and apparently neglected by Oracle and Cert had a tantrum and now they are not a viable option. But if I converted to Javascript, could the same thing happen to Javascript.
In my opinion (and that's all it is), applets are not viable.
Not everybody subscribes to this view -- but those who do will not
be in your website's audience.
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-11 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c2b3btFm296U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #28934 |
In article <lp3p8f$s8v$1@dont-email.me>, Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: > On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: > > [...] > > One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? > > Experts (I'm not one) have opined that the security models for > JavaScript and Java are fundamentally different. JavaScript (they > say) was designed from its infancy to run in a browser's sandbox, > but Java is a fully-functional general-purpose language with a > sandbox bolted on afterwards. Hm! I thought I had read, back when I first started learning Java (1998?), that one of the original design goals of the language was to provide just the kind of sandbox that would make it safe to run applets from possibly-untrustworthy sources, and its evoluation into a general-purpose language came later. But I haven't researched the history, so you could be right. > Another way to look at this is that > JavaScript can do only what the browser itself can do, while Java > can do anything the JVM fails to prevent. > > This is not to say that JavaScript is 100% secure -- plenty of > malware relies at least in part on JavaScript -- just that it's a > more limited risk than Java is. Or so say those who seem to know. > > > The history seems to be that Java Applets were exploited big-time by hackers and apparently neglected by Oracle and Cert had a tantrum and now they are not a viable option. But if I converted to Javascript, could the same thing happen to Javascript. > > In my opinion (and that's all it is), applets are not viable. > Not everybody subscribes to this view -- but those who do will not > be in your website's audience. > -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-11 18:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lppo2p$mnn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #29057 |
On 7/11/2014 5:30 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> In article <lp3p8f$s8v$1@dont-email.me>,
> Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets?
>>
>> Experts (I'm not one) have opined that the security models for
>> JavaScript and Java are fundamentally different. JavaScript (they
>> say) was designed from its infancy to run in a browser's sandbox,
>> but Java is a fully-functional general-purpose language with a
>> sandbox bolted on afterwards.
>
> Hm! I thought I had read, back when I first started learning Java
> (1998?), that one of the original design goals of the language was
> to provide just the kind of sandbox that would make it safe to run
> applets from possibly-untrustworthy sources, and its evoluation into
> a general-purpose language came later. But I haven't researched
> the history, so you could be right.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28programming_language%29>
lists "robust and secure" as one of five primary goals for Java,
but it's not clear whether these goals were "original" or just sort
of retrofitted after Java/Green/Oak moved beyond set-top boxes.
Also, it seems to me that each of the five goals offers at least
some opportunity to meditate on the difference between "goal" and
"achievement," and to mutter the old saying that one's reach should
exceed one's grasp ...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Java> offers a few
words on Java security, although some of the gripes seem to have more
to do with Oracle's support of Java than with Java itself. The page
at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_security> gets more specific
about particular flaws and exploits thereof. (I imagine a security
expert might have a few quibbles with the latter page, though.)
--
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-12 23:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c2du4qF9c6rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29059 |
In article <lppo2p$mnn$1@dont-email.me>, Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: > On 7/11/2014 5:30 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > > In article <lp3p8f$s8v$1@dont-email.me>, > > Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: > [ .... ] > >>> [...] > >>> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? > >> > >> Experts (I'm not one) have opined that the security models for > >> JavaScript and Java are fundamentally different. JavaScript (they > >> say) was designed from its infancy to run in a browser's sandbox, > >> but Java is a fully-functional general-purpose language with a > >> sandbox bolted on afterwards. > > > > Hm! I thought I had read, back when I first started learning Java > > (1998?), that one of the original design goals of the language was > > to provide just the kind of sandbox that would make it safe to run > > applets from possibly-untrustworthy sources, and its evoluation into > > a general-purpose language came later. But I haven't researched > > the history, so you could be right. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_%28programming_language%29> > lists "robust and secure" as one of five primary goals for Java, > but it's not clear whether these goals were "original" or just sort > of retrofitted after Java/Green/Oak moved beyond set-top boxes. > Also, it seems to me that each of the five goals offers at least > some opportunity to meditate on the difference between "goal" and > "achievement," and to mutter the old saying that one's reach should > exceed one's grasp ... There is that! > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Java> offers a few > words on Java security, although some of the gripes seem to have more > to do with Oracle's support of Java than with Java itself. The page > at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_security> gets more specific > about particular flaws and exploits thereof. (I imagine a security > expert might have a few quibbles with the latter page, though.) > -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Cranmer 🐧 <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-11 17:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lppora$r3l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #29057 |
On 7/11/2014 4:30 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > In article <lp3p8f$s8v$1@dont-email.me>, > Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: >> On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: >>> [...] >>> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? >> >> Experts (I'm not one) have opined that the security models for >> JavaScript and Java are fundamentally different. JavaScript (they >> say) was designed from its infancy to run in a browser's sandbox, >> but Java is a fully-functional general-purpose language with a >> sandbox bolted on afterwards. > > Hm! I thought I had read, back when I first started learning Java > (1998?), that one of the original design goals of the language was > to provide just the kind of sandbox that would make it safe to run > applets from possibly-untrustworthy sources, and its evoluation into > a general-purpose language came later. But I haven't researched > the history, so you could be right. Java was originally designed for *safety*, not *security*. According to Wikipedia, Java (the language) was originally designed to be used for programming smart appliances, and was basically meant to fix C++'s deficiencies, particularly its compatibility with horribly-unsafe C and its lack of portability. Apparently, they changed tack after cable companies decided they didn't want highly interactive set-top box platforms, and transitioned to trying to add interactivity to web-pages afterwards. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-12 23:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c2du7mF9c6rU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29060 |
In article <lppora$r3l$1@dont-email.me>, Joshua Cranmer ð § <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> wrote: > On 7/11/2014 4:30 PM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: > > In article <lp3p8f$s8v$1@dont-email.me>, > > Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> wrote: > >> On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? > >> > >> Experts (I'm not one) have opined that the security models for > >> JavaScript and Java are fundamentally different. JavaScript (they > >> say) was designed from its infancy to run in a browser's sandbox, > >> but Java is a fully-functional general-purpose language with a > >> sandbox bolted on afterwards. > > > > Hm! I thought I had read, back when I first started learning Java > > (1998?), that one of the original design goals of the language was > > to provide just the kind of sandbox that would make it safe to run > > applets from possibly-untrustworthy sources, and its evoluation into > > a general-purpose language came later. But I haven't researched > > the history, so you could be right. > > Java was originally designed for *safety*, not *security*. According to > Wikipedia, Java (the language) was originally designed to be used for > programming smart appliances, and was basically meant to fix C++'s > deficiencies, particularly its compatibility with horribly-unsafe C and > its lack of portability. Apparently, they changed tack after cable > companies decided they didn't want highly interactive set-top box > platforms, and transitioned to trying to add interactivity to web-pages > afterwards. > As best I can tell from the history section of the Wikipedia article on Java, the switch away from only-for-set-top-boxes happened before the first release of an implementation, so -- eh, maybe "original design goals" is not quite accurate, but "design goals for first implementation" seems to me to be pretty close? Anyway I'm not finding anything yet that to me supports a claim that security was bolted on after the initial design, though of course that doesn't mean that it didn't happen that way .... Also from the Wikipedia article: "Sun Microsystems released the first public implementation as Java 1.0 in 1995.[1] It promised "Write Once, Run Anywhere" (WORA), providing no-cost run-times on popular platforms. Fairly secure and featuring configurable security, it allowed network- and file-access restrictions." But we can probably agree that whenever this goal was added, actual implementations have fallen short. Alas. -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-06 12:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53b97808$0$291$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #28930 |
On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote: >> I permit JavaScript, use "click to run" for Flash, and >> don't even install Silverlight.[*] > One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? In recent years Java applets has had more and more serious security vulnerabilities. But various JavaScript implementations has also had numerous security vulnerabilities. The entire "run code in browser" idea is hard to keep 100% secure. But today the internet is almost useless with JavaScript disabled so practically nobody disables JavaScript. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thinbluernime <thinbluernime3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-08 09:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lpgfeb$3pa$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #28967 |
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:23:35 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > But today the internet is almost useless with JavaScript disabled so > practically nobody disables JavaScript. You should use NoScript and whitelist just the sites you need. Though, it seems that web advertisers don't like that and are pushing site operators to use site designs that make whitelisting a colossal pain. For example, I went to an article at Huffington Post recently. Images didn't load -- typically a symptom of some web author either being so stupid as to not know that you can do that without needing JS by using the <img> tag, or else being so corrupt that he'll sell out his professionalism by being paid to gratuitously break functionality so that users will turn on JS so that they can be tracked by the advertisers. So, I turn on JS for "huffingtonpost.com". Still nothing, but now NoScript shows dozens more domains pushing JS at me. I find, and enable, "huffpo.com". Why the heck does the site need two versions of its own domain name, and scripts loaded from both? It reminds me of another annoying recent trend, that of excessive overuse of URL shorteners, and site-specific shorteners, such as "goo.gl" (because the additional FOUR WHOLE CHARACTERS(!!) in "google.com" are SUCH a burden to type, if for some silly reason you're not just using the little Google box built into your FUCKING BROWSER...) Many other images now load, including thumbs next to all the "other stuff you might want to read" timesuck-links down the right hand side of the page, but the images in the article itself are still not loading. Right click "Inspect Element (Q)" reveals they're loading from some third party image host and not Huffington Post, and I enable JS from instagram.com. AND STILL NOTHING! The final and utter offense is after another Q at a spot where there seems to be supposed to be an image, and expanding some of the iframe loading from Instagram. Seems that I also need to enable "dfx8247834920mdds8.cloudfront.com" or some similar domain. Indeed, enabling JS from that domain as well makes the images show up. And then I quickly "revoke temporary permissions", because THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY I am leaving a domain name like that last one able to serve JS to me. That is EXACTLY the sort of domain name -- an opaque alphanumeric token and then .com or somegiantwebhost.com -- that malware pushers serve their blackhole exploit kits and other dangerous wares from. You see domains like that in the disassembly of worm code all the fucking time, where they made up hundreds of garbage names unlikely to collide with anything existing, then rented them from some cheap-ass host and put their botnet C&C servers there with the worms programmed to try them all in turn to try to phone home, so that the whitehats get to spend ages playing whackamole if they don't manage to deobfuscate a malware sample to discover them all at once. So, the arms race so far has been like this: Advertisers make their ads annoyingly intrusive, covering up content and needing to be "dismissed" and tracking people in breach of user privacy. Malware writers start exploiting browsers with not just mildly annoying pranks but seriously destructive shit like Cryptolocker. -> Users start turning JS off. Advertisers, deprived of being able to spy on people or serve ads more intrusive than 468x60 animated .gifs inserted with ordinary img tags, demand that website operators force users to turn on JS or they'll pull their ads and take their money elsewhere. Website operators cave and soon you can't go anywhere without "This website requires JS" redirects, navigation links that are "a href=# onClick=document.load(addy)" instead of "a href=addy", images that don't embed without JS, and all sorts of other noisome tactics to make their sites annoying-to-unusable without JS even if the user-desirable functionality on the site (text with inline images!) does not technically require any client-side scripting. Because the *advertiser*-desirable functionality does. My personal favorite? "You must enable Javascript. DDoS protection from CloudFlare." Say what? I don't care if you've been DDoSed lately, I'm not opening my fucking computer up to fucking Cryptolocker coming from that 1x1 iframe someone who hacked your site snuck in there just to let you fucking avoid a few minutes of non-data- destroying downtime from some joker turning a Gbps packet hose on you. Especially not when you're such a nobody of a website you'll never be targeted with any industrial-strength DoS attack anyway because you can't possibly have made those sorts of enemies (Anonymous, RIAA, etc.) -> Users use NoScript to whitelist just the website they're actually visiting. The stupid advertisers' hosts, and the g7238d590d.cheaphost.net serving a Cryptolocker-dropping Zeus instance from that 1x1 iframe, stay blocked. So the advertisers now force website operators to make their sites break unless lots of third-party sites are also whitelisted, even ones with names very similar to the domain names blackhats serve Cryptolocker from, for the sole purpose of getting as many end users as possible to throw up their hands and turn on JS "properly". What's a security-minded user to do? Spend $400 they don't have on A WHOLE EXTRA COMPUTER just for surfing from, and jump through a wide assortment of nuisance hoops to copy and paste things back and forth between it and their main computer? That what the goddamn advertisers want? I know what *I* want. For the goddamn advertisers to go fuck themselves. For some sort of distributed peer-to-peer webhosting thingy to take off that will naturally make anything hosted on it a) scale automatically the more popular it gets, b) cost nothing to host, c) be naturally immune to DDoS, and d) not therefore have any need of advertising to pay hosting costs ... so any scripts on it will be only what's necessary for actual user-desired functionality. And whitelisting will not be such a pain anymore again, since nobody will be specifically motivated to MAKE it a pain. For something like that. End of rant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-10 14:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53bedb50$0$298$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #28997 |
On 7/8/2014 5:59 AM, thinbluernime wrote: > On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:23:35 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> But today the internet is almost useless with JavaScript disabled so >> practically nobody disables JavaScript. > > You should use NoScript and whitelist just the sites you need. One could. But many would consider it too much work. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-08 12:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1busiy74j2ogh$.1h0kq6udhfo0d$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #28967 |
On Sun, 06 Jul 2014 12:23:35 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 7/3/2014 9:01 AM, w.tom.adams@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:00:56 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote: >>> I permit JavaScript, use "click to run" for Flash, and >>> don't even install Silverlight.[*] >> One question I have is this: Why is Javascript not as vulnerable as Java Applets? > In recent years Java applets has had more and more serious security > vulnerabilities. > But various JavaScript implementations has also had numerous security > vulnerabilities. > The entire "run code in browser" idea is hard to keep 100% secure. To be fair, that's kind of a weird expectation in the first place. People find it entirely reasonable to just download opaque .exe files and run them from any website that looks even remotely respectable, but if that website were to ask them if it was ok to maybe for a minute run some sandboxes Java code, they'd freak out. In fact, I used to host a game through Java Webstart, and the #1 support question was something amongst the lines of "I heard Java was insecure, can't you give me an exe file to download". People are idiots. Liebe Gruesse, Joerg -- Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider ungelesen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-09 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c25cncFij3lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29000 |
On 08.07.2014 12:37, Joerg Meier wrote: > In fact, I used to host a game through Java Webstart, and the #1 support > question was something amongst the lines of "I heard Java was insecure, > can't you give me an exe file to download". People are idiots. We are also people. Ergo: we are idiots. And I don't mean that ironically: we also have our weak spots. Cheers robert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-09 20:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1m4pctdl5y966.127q4nobmd4s9.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #29020 |
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 19:33:30 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote: > On 08.07.2014 12:37, Joerg Meier wrote: >> In fact, I used to host a game through Java Webstart, and the #1 support >> question was something amongst the lines of "I heard Java was insecure, >> can't you give me an exe file to download". People are idiots. > We are also people. Ergo: we are idiots. And I don't mean that > ironically: we also have our weak spots. Yes, but the thing is, groups tend to be dumber than the individuals that make it up. It's probably something about unreflectedly mimmicking your social peers. If I were to guess, I'd say it's some sort of evolutionary mechanism to make sure only a minimal amount of tribe members fall into the same hole or drink the same spoiled water. Liebe Gruesse, Joerg -- Ich lese meine Emails nicht, replies to Email bleiben also leider ungelesen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-07-10 20:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c2843eF2ukuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29021 |
On 09.07.2014 20:01, Joerg Meier wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 19:33:30 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote: > >> On 08.07.2014 12:37, Joerg Meier wrote: >>> In fact, I used to host a game through Java Webstart, and the #1 support >>> question was something amongst the lines of "I heard Java was insecure, >>> can't you give me an exe file to download". People are idiots. >> We are also people. Ergo: we are idiots. And I don't mean that >> ironically: we also have our weak spots. > > Yes, but the thing is, groups tend to be dumber than the individuals that > make it up. It's probably something about unreflectedly mimmicking your > social peers. If I were to guess, I'd say it's some sort of evolutionary > mechanism to make sure only a minimal amount of tribe members fall into the > same hole or drink the same spoiled water. I'm not sure that herd instinct helps prevent those mishaps. Could well be that because of it everybody drinks the same water only to find out later it was spoiled. Btw. other than it may look like on first sight my snappy remark was neither about dumbness nor about groups. It's about people stating other people are idiots. Idiocy is ubiquitous and you employ your flavor of it as surely as I do. :-) Cheers robert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web