Slashdot Mirror
Why You Can't Dump Java (Even Though You Want To)
snydeq writes "Since so many recent exploits have used Java as their attack vector, you might conclude Java should be shown the exit, but the reality is that Java is not the problem, writes Security Advisor's Roger Grimes. 'Sure, I could opt not to use those Java-enabled services or install Java and uninstall when I'm finished. But the core problem isn't necessarily Java's exploitability; nearly all software is exploitable. It's unpatched Java. Few successful Java-related attacks are related to zero-day exploits. Almost all are related to Java security bugs that have been patched for months (or longer),' Grimes writes. 'The bottom line is that we aren't addressing the real problems. It isn't a security bug here and there in a particular piece of software; that's a problem we'll never get rid of. Instead, we allow almost all cyber criminals to get away with their Internet crime without any penalty. They almost never get caught and punished. Until we solve the problem of accountability, we will never get rid of the underlying problem.'"
Good luck with that, we humans have entire criminal justice systems which are supposed to bring accountability... pretty sure you know where I'm going with this one.
He may be right, but he's also totally unrealistic. Nothing you ever do will stop the "underlying problem". But we can fix security holes, and pressure companies to release more secure code.
No point hoping for what is "right", or "best". Aim for something realistic instead.
Security is one problem -- the other being that you'll get sued for using it. Just ask Microsoft and Google.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Java isn't insecure, criminals just aren't being punished.
That applies to EVERY piece of software. Why should Java get a free pass?
We should legislate away our technical problems?
No thanks. It's been shown time and time again that not only doesn't it work, but it tends to make the technical problems worse.
If everyone thinks "i can just sue them later" them attention to security will drop even farther.
There are very good security systems out there that very few people and organizations bother to implement or continue.
We punish drug dealers and users... they keep on pushing and using.
We punish robbers and gangsters... stores get robbed and people gangbanged every day.
We punish rapists and other sex offenders...new ones crop up.
We punish murderers and and wife beaters... people still get killed and wives beaten every day.
Punishment it little if any deterrent. In countries with far less harsh criminal penalties than the United States, the crime rate stays about even to all other industrialized countries, even given the lesser punishments.
And somehow Grimes thinks that punishing crackers (not hackers.. I am proudly one of those), is going to make a difference. Even if you did manage to snuff it out in one place (highly unlikely), the internet is worldwide and you will have places with less lax laws or corrupt officials where those of a criminal bent can launch whatever they choose.
Most crime (not all)is cause by real or perceived poverty or other social disparity. Spending billions to incarcerate the underprivileged does nothing but further this disparity and create -more- crime.
Try looking at the world with empathy instead of greed and anger and try to lift people up. You may be surprised what a difference it makes.
Silence is a state of mime.
Title:
Why Elephants Are Large
Story:
An Elephant's trunk is very flexible. Even more amazing are the flexible snakes in the grass. Click this link to learn all about why bird's eggs are shaped the way they are.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Instead, we allow almost all cyber criminals to get away with their Internet crime without any penalty.
Beloved, this is not being true! I have sure-fire way to stop crimes and makes you not being victims of many internet crimes ever. Alls I needs is your passwords to your accounts, and I makes them very secures. Especially yours banks passwords accounts numbers, I very much promising. I extra interested if you been scammed before. I help most much.
To show I most sincere, I also give you free 500 Viagra pills extra-effective man-stick for your every account you wants me protect! Your woman moan against your amazing he umbrella many time.
The big security problem with Java software is that you can't differentiate between them since they all run on the jvm. For example, you can't block net access from a Java program in a firewall, because you would have to block the whole jvm.
but we can still remove java and have less risk right ?
Indeed. I will have to disagree with "security advisor Roger Grimes" and point out that complexity breeds bugs; bugs breed security holes; Java's JIT and supporting libraries are just way too complex for their own good. This problem is made way more severe by Java's closed development model.
Java can be made secure, just not any time soon, not until Oracle gets a clue and opens up the development process.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You can also not use windows and opt for linux. But is it worth it? For some, yes, I'd say that for most people it isn't.
Java runs some cool software that most have no idea it actually is Java (it can copy the look and feel of your OS). The only way to mostly fix java is to have chrome like updates. Silent, forced on you but safe.
Almost all are related to Java security bugs that have been patched for months (or longer),' Grimes writes. 'The bottom line is that we aren't addressing the real problems. It isn't a security bug here and there in a particular piece of software; that's a problem we'll never get rid of.
And so the appropriate thing is to see why in the heck we don't have all software always patched up to date. And the reason for that in Java is that it's bloody stupid updater takes 5 minutes and 10 clicks. Change it to be like Chrome -- background auto-update itself silently* with zero user input (or one click) -- and you'll have 99% of the installs up to date without issue.
To be clear, for the control-freak BOFHs, enterprisey people and hobbyists that actually enjoy computer maintenance, there should be a checkbox in options that says "Disable All Automatic Updating until I uncheck this box". If the user checks it, turn on the webcam and require them to raise their right hand and swear "I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THIS SOFTWARE UPDATED, ANY ILL THAT BEFALLS ME FROM NOT PATCHING IS MY OWN DAMNED FAULT AND I DESERVE IT". Make sure that preference persist between installs.
IOW, I'm not saying everyone has to do automatic silent updating, I'm saying that it should be the default setting unless the user expresses a desire to maintain it updated himself and is appraised of the risk of doing so. Let the user decide, but provide a better default behavior that's appropriate for most users.
Or a package manager that keeps ALL your software up to date like Linux has had for years!
MS wouldn't be patching 3rd party software (you're right, that'd be crazy). MS would provide a general framework for maintaining installed software which 3rd party vendors could hook into.
Instead of every package implementing its own updater with its own background service and configuration system, they'd be one updater that everyone used which presented updates to the user in a central place. Instead of 10 badly implemented updaters, you'd have one good one.
This is what all linux distributions do and it works pretty well. I expect the win8 app store will do something like this.