| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
2.3.4.2 ActiveX (Page 2 of 2) ActiveX and Digital Signatures In the ActiveX model, the programmer can write code to do whatever they please. The emphasis is not so much on prevention (since a control downloaded from any arbitrary web site is free to do whatever it wishes on the users computer), as it is on using digital code signing (discussed in 2.3.4.5) to enable a victim of an ActiveX-based attack to determine who was responsible for it and to go after them. Think of this process as a digital signature to verify the origin of the component. This is not necessarily the best model for secure client/server communications in situations where the client has any reason to distrust the server (read: most Internet web browsing). One reason this doesnt help security much is that there are plenty of things an ActiveX control can do to compromise the security of a client machine (like read data off the users system and send it up to a web server), that users typically cannot even detect what good is accountability, if users never suspect theres a problem? The other reason is that while digital signing guarantees that someone proved their identity to the some certifying organization, theres no guaranteeing that the certifying organization was someone other than a random geek in a basement with a signature-generating program on his PC, or that the user will even bother to check to see that the source of the digital signature was a respected site.
Because ActiveX controls are distributed to client machines as compiled code which is effectively unreadable by curious users (as opposed to Java Scripts text or Javas somewhat-reversible byte code), they provide an additional level of intellectual property security its more difficult for someone to steal your fancy new button lighting effect and adapt it for their own purposes, if they cant see the code. Update --- Bagle Worm Variant released in March, 2004 is in email that is not an attachment.217
__________________ 217. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1550841,00.asp
Home - Table Of Contents - Contact Us CertiGuide for Security+ (http://www.CertiGuide.com/secplus/) on CertiGuide.com Version 1.0 - Version Date: November 15, 2004 Adapted with permission from a work created by Tcat Houser et al. CertiGuide.com Version © Copyright 2004 Charles M. Kozierok. All Rights Reserved. Not responsible for any loss resulting from the use of this site. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||