4 ms·
The article acknowledges that the so-called "IPE rules" only apply to small subset of libraries. (They don't even apply to applets/servlets because the librarie
by wsxcde 11y ago
The article acknowledges that the so-called "IPE rules" only apply to small subset of libraries. (They don't even apply to applets/servlets because the libraries which run these things are supposed to handle the isolation here.)
IMO the gist of the article is this:
1. We came in believing that Java is more secure than C.
2. So we thought that Java would require fewer secure coding rules.
3. But it turns out Java has more! What does this mean? Was assumption (1) wrong or is there something else going on?
4. Analysis follows.
5. Our assumption was right, it's just that Java has more stuff than C.
IOW, the point of the article was to refute the strawman, "Java has more secure coding rules than C, hence it's harder to write secure Java code than secure C code."
I'm not sure what you expected the article to say but just asserting "Java is more secure than C" is useless because you just end up preaching to the choir.
- tptacek 11y agoI didn't read it that way at all, but agree that an article that effectively refuted that straw man would be a good thing.
- cows_i_have 11y agoThat's a pretty good summary. It can be pretty tough to analyse permissions across a big Java application though, which is harder than analysing a small C programme that does some kind of math simulation or something. So I can see the real world application of this paradigm.