A Personal Blog
Yes, ActiveX is Secure
I’ve had some angry emails since my last post detailing my thoughts on IE7.
Specifically, it seems people take objection to this:
3. ActiveX will not be dropped. The problem is that people perceive ActiveX in a certain way. I could see Microsoft relabelling the objects to something like ASO’s (ActiveX Secure Objects) or something. But ActiveX is valuable, and is inherently (as a way of implementing instant page-specific plugins and applets) fine. It’s no worse than XUL in that way. So, no, it’s not going away.
Yes, I believe ActiveX is secure. That is, I feel it’s just as secure as every other “page-specific plugin or applet architecture”. What does this mean? It’s basically as secure as any other plugin system, XUL, etc. When I say “basically as secure”, I’m talking about the security model, not the actual security we’ve seen.
Yes, there have been a handful of core security issues with ActiveX. However, ActiveX all by itself isn’t really insecure. What was insecure, prior to XP SP2, was the way users interacted with ActiveX: they’d click “yes” when asked to install a piece of software, and since it was the default selection a lot of crap got installed by accident which severely hurt users.
So, yes, there have been security issues around user behaviour, which is why Microsoft changes the way that users interact with ActiveX prompts in XP SP2.
But the security model is as fine as anything in this space (ie: allow local execution of remote code) can reasonably be expected to be.
XUL has serious issues (because of a lack of a security model), as does FireFox’s plugin architecture (ditto). These things will come back to bite certain people in the ass. Just like ActiveX has already bitten Microsoft in the ass. This is the reason I proposed “ASO” as a new name, because even if there is no change to the security model, there will likely be changes to other aspects of ActiveX, and a minor rebranding isn’t a bad thing.
What’s the point of this (yet another) ramble?
Anytime remote code can be executed locally, there will be no such thing as “secure”. ActiveX is right up there, from both a user interaction point of view as well as from the handful of ways that people have been able to get around the prompts. However the fact that remote code is allowed to ever be executed precludes us from (in today’s world) having any semblance of security with any of these tools.
So, that’s what’s in my head in regards to ActiveX, and it’s why I don’t see any massive differences coming. Perhaps a larger reason is that the new .NET / Longhorn toolsets will make ActiveX completely obsolete anyways.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Jeremy Wright on February 16, 2005 at 6:28 pm, and is filed under IT Thoughts. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 7 years ago
Of course it is. As you put it, it’s no less secure than XUL.
about 7 years ago
Well, ActiveX is fast becoming a blacklist item. Many ad networks won’t allow their ads on pages with ActiveX of any kind.
about 7 years ago
“as does FireFox’s plugin architecture (ditto). ”
If you mean extensions, then those are only allowed to be run from whitelisted sites. By default, only update.mozilla.org is whitelisted. Otherwise, if some site tries to install a firefox extension you get the yellow information bar and no other prompt. If you actually want the extension you have to go in and specifically allow that site.
about 7 years ago
XUL has exactly the same security model as HTML. You may be confused with extensions or other installable components. Even then, I’m not sure what security model you’re expecting those components to have.
about 7 years ago
Yeah, XUL has absolutely no “Are you sure you want to view this?” message or anything – and no security. Neil is 100% correct, it’s exactly like HTML. As for extensions – yeah, they need white listing, which is nice. Still, XUL is easily used for phising, though that might not be the point we’re talking about.
about 7 years ago
So you’re a security expert now?
about 7 years ago
Really? What about java applets? They run on a virtual machine, are bytecode verified, and restricted by strong security parameters. They can’t write to files on your disk without complicated permissions, etc. There are plenty of ways to secure remote code for local use…
about 7 years ago
Oh–and your Northern Voice button is quite dead, for some reason. I get 404.
about 7 years ago
VOD
about 7 years ago
I don’t thinks Activex is secure.