|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
From: Ogle Ron (Rennes) (OgleR
thmulti.com)Date: Sat Oct 27 2001 - 17:01:58 CDT
Your analogy would make Microsoft liable for damages to the end user. But
this isn't the case because the contract is between Macromedia and Microsoft
unless the original user license covers all software downloaded at a latter
point that would be signed by an entity known as "Microsoft" and was
recognized by the certificates originally stored in the original OS install.
If this is the case, then the user is still using software "AS-IS" with no
implied warranties or guarantees that the software will do you what you
want.
At this point, the user should understand that there is no contract, and
it's user beware. Of course, the big problem for ActiveX is that the user
gets an all or nothing approach to security and protection. Even with a
signed ActiveX application, it still can be used for illicit purposes.
Java is still the only technology that will allow the user to restrict the
application from doing the most harm from their system. As a user and
consumer, you can make your voice be heard by buying applications that meet
your security requirements.
Ron Ogle
Rennes, France
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Razvan Peteanu [mailto:razvan-peteanu
home.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 7:28 PM
> To: webappsec
securityfocus.com
> Subject: Re: Active-X, plug-ins etc
>
>
> This raises the issues of _why_ one trusts a vendor and
> whether the trust is
> transitive. When a user accepts signed code, he basically
> assumes that code
> will not perform malicious actions and can not be used to
> facilitate such
> actions. The accountability is on the signer's side, not on
> developer's. If
> a user trusts the signer, then it does not matter whether the
> code has been
> written by someone in the same company or by other parties.
> In the real
> world, when one a contract is signed, it does not matter who typed and
> printed it, but who signs it.
>
> If signing the software is treated responsibly, then it is
> not possible for
> code written by "Jow Hacker" to be signed by Macromedia.
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]