Re: Active X exploit.

[casper () HOLLAND SUN COM (Casper Dik)]

Paul Leach <paulle () MICROSOFT COM> wrote:

> What ActiveX doesn't have is a sandbox. That's different than saying
> that there's no security.
>
> ActiveX controls are _signed_ DLLs. You run the code if you trust the
> signer. If you do, you know that no one has tampered with the code since
> the signer signed it.

But that still doesn't mean that the code has no security problems;
first of all, how can you be sure to trust the signer?

But more importantly, how can you be sure the signer made no programming
errors?  All it takes is one signed ActiveX control, with say, a buffer
overflow, and you again have a big security problem.

When you make such an error on a control, you need to revoke your signature.

Casper