On Saturday 14 May 2005 13:03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
Jaqui Greenlees writes:
any extention to a browser should by default be marked as insecure. or the developers of the browser could be held liable for damages for not marking it as such. ( flash included )
I agree. And they should also be held responsible for any mistakes they make that breach security. This includes buffer overflows, for which there is no excuse.
It's very difficult to tell other people what to do.
true enough. but if the user has to choose to install an extention instead of the browser going after it. ( automatic plugin finder [ more in netscape than mozilla tools, but it happens with mozilla's browsers also ] ) then it is definately end user's choice to breach security.
About the best you can do is set an API and close down anything that doesn't conform to it.
close down how? my draconian answer: refuse to run anything that is not 100% api compliant.
not even 99% allowed.
And, as it is the host that is vulnerable, the host is also responsible; if MF wanted to avoid buffer overflows, it could have written the code to be invulnerable to them (using java, or insisting that all plugins be written in java for example, or inventing your own "java", or putting each plugin in a separate process, or ...)
so this means.. mozilla's developers chose to ignore good coding practices?
they decided to use m$'s drag and drop rad style coding rather than do any real coding?
most common cause of buffer overflow errors is from bloated code, caused by using a drag and drop interface designer, linking to prebuilt libraries. this is what causes a continuation of buffer overflows, reusing libs with bloated interface design elements.
if this attitude is adopted, then it makes end user accept responsability for breaking security.
Yes, but most software tends to drift away from this ideal, and Firefox no doubt will do that, too. People want bells and whistles, not security.
At the end of the day, what wins is that combination of things that delivers the best results.
There is no absolute in security, people will aways trade some security for some benefit. By way of example, you recently posted that you had relationships with financial institutions. That's a trade-off.
Everyone makes these trade-offs. The best we can do is say "there are trade-offs. Here they are... Be careful. No guarantees." Or somesuch - I'm having trouble writing that and not finding loopholes myself.
iang
yup, trade the absolute security of your system to be online.
trade the security of your browser for features that don't add anything but bells and whistles.
I test my browser for vulnerabilities, never have any because of never having any extentions or clientside scripting enabled.
Jaqui
--
The Best Spam Campain:
snail mail a can of spam to local ( state / province ) leaders, as well as national leaders.
With a note:
use funds to feed homeless and poor in our country before sending foreign aide
_______________________________________________
Mozilla-security mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-security
