1996-05-05 - Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: “Scruffies” vs. “Neats”)

Header Data

From: Victor Boyko <vboykod@eldorado.stern.nyu.edu>
To: EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU
Message Hash: 729fab58aa60032c84024981c903de9b7c6e9ee05fba38374f49e5af3ddf65fd
Message ID: <9605050131.AA01873@eldorado.stern.nyu.edu>
Reply To: <01I49T6J284A8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-05 06:28:33 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 14:28:33 +0800

Raw message

From: Victor Boyko <vboykod@eldorado.stern.nyu.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 14:28:33 +0800
To: EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU
Subject: Re: Why I dislike Java. (was Re: "Scruffies" vs. "Neats")
In-Reply-To: <01I49T6J284A8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <9605050131.AA01873@eldorado.stern.nyu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>>>> "Allen" == "E ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> writes:

    Allen> 	Might I suggest setting up another computer with Java
    Allen> enabled, and _without_ the critical applications? Somehow,
    Allen> I think they can afford an extra computer for each desk -
    Allen> it wouldn't have to be a high-capability one. That would
    Allen> also cure having to have Netscape and other
    Allen> high-network-access programs on the same computers as the
    Allen> critical applications. (Of course, some of the critical
    Allen> applications may also need to access the Internet... but
    Allen> they probably wouldn't need http capability.) Of course,
    Allen> feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking
    Allen> about.

And I suppose the next thing you are going to suggest is to get an
extra firewall just for the Java-enabled machines. This is just a
waste of money and resources. I firmly believe that access and
security control should be left to the operating system: OS's have
been designed with that task in mind for decades, while 'secure'
virtual machines, AFAIK, only appeared recently. Also, the OS uses
hardware (supervisor mode bit) to protect the kernel from unauthorized
access, while a Java interpreter could only do it in software.

Why not make Netscape SUID root and have it spawn a separate process
just for running Java as user nobody? Communication between the
processes could be done through sockets (it is better not to share any
address space). Then you could at least be sure it could not read or
write any unprotected files and directories. Most OS's don't restrict
network access for processes, but this should be easy to add: just
have additional flags in the process descriptor and have all system
calls related to the network check those flags.

I understand that the above does not apply to Win95 and Mac. There is
only one thing I can say to those unfortunate enough to use them:
install UNIX!!! Linux for PC has been available for a while, and Linux
for PowerPC should come out this Summer. (And yes, I know that UNIX's
sometimes have security bugs too, but there are much fewer of them
than in Netscape's Java interpreter, and they are usually fixed sooner.
Also, UNIX has been around for 25 years, while Java-enabled Netscape
for less than a year.)

Any constructive comments or criticism about UNIX and Java security is
welcome. Send flames to /dev/null.

-- 
Victor Boyko <vboykod@is-2.nyu.edu>
http://galt.cs.nyu.edu/students/vb1890/
To get my PGP key, finger or send e-mail with subject "send pgp key".





Thread