ALERT – XP COULD DISABLE JAVA IN WEB BROWSERS AND EMAIL

[Debbie Locker]

Unpublicized changes to security settings and their definitions in the current
beta of Windows XP could deny millions of users email and web browser access
to Internet content enabled through Java applets.

In XP, the default security settings in Outlook and Outlook Express will
automatically block Java applets in user inboxes.

In addition, XP’s security definition changes will block Java applets in
browsers when administrators opt for high security settings. Previously,
Java was not blocked in high security mode – a setting routinely used by
IT administrators to protect corporate networks.

POSSIE (People for Open, Safe and Secure Internet and Email) challenges the
disabling of Java applets. To date, no Java applet has been linked to a
large-scale virus outbreak via email or on the web. If XP’s security settings
that wrongly categorize Java continue, the real risk will be to innovation
and open competition.

Anyone concerned about innovation open competition should visit www.POSSIE.org,
or contact Microsoft directly.

[Tim Romano]

I read that XP will not ship with a java runtime. If true, that will
strike a more severe blow to Java than the default security settings.
I agree that such moves are anti-competitive, in that they are actions,
taken by a monopolist, that disrupt applications using competing
technologies.
Tim Romano
www.aimsdata.com/tim


"Debbie Locker" <dlocker@possie.org> wrote in
news:3b5584bc$1@news.devx.com:


> [...]
> In XP, the default security settings in Outlook and Outlook Express
> will automatically block Java applets in user inboxes.

> [...]
> XP’s security definition changes will block Java applets
> in browsers when administrators opt for high security settings.

> [...]
> To date, no Java applet has been linked
> to a large-scale virus outbreak via email or on the web. If XP’s
> security settings that wrongly categorize Java continue, the real risk
> will be to innovation and open competition.
>
> Anyone concerned about innovation open competition should visit
> www.POSSIE.org, or contact Microsoft directly.

[Dennis Bronstein]

Seems to me that since it's so important for Sun to retain control of Java
they should make an XP runtime themselves. Why should MS do it for them?

Dennis

"Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90E37340BBC0Btimromano@209.1.14.192...
> I read that XP will not ship with a java runtime. If true, that will
> strike a more severe blow to Java than the default security settings.
> I agree that such moves are anti-competitive, in that they are actions,
> taken by a monopolist, that disrupt applications using competing
> technologies.
> Tim Romano
> www.aimsdata.com/tim
>

[Tim Romano]

To answer your question, which seemed rather snide to me (e.g. "so
important") -- though perhaps you did not intend to have that tone-of-
voice.

(1) The Microsoft JVM already exists. Microsoft is simply not including it
with non-corporate "simgle image" purchases. Clearly, the effect of that
decision will be to stifle java web development that is geared to the
consumer-at-large. Whereas now one can assume that a Windows desktop has a
very good chance of having the runtime installed, in the future, just the
opposite will be the case. RIP. Shades of DR-DOS.

(2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder of
significant market-share does not have.

See the following (note possible line-end truncation) <URL>
http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles...nojava.xml?071
9thap </URL>

here is an excerpt:

"MICROSOFT WILL NOT include its JVM (Java Virtual Machine) in Windows XP or
subsequent operating systems as part of a phase-out of the JVM following a
January out-of-court settlement with Sun Microsystems. Consumers who buy
Windows XP will not get JVM with the operating system but will be able to
download Microsoft's JVM free from the company's Web site. [...]

Corporate customers who buy a single image of Windows XP will get the
Microsoft JVM on the discs that contain the operating system, so they will
not have to download a JVM onto each individual machine, but it will not be
part of the operating system."

Tim Romano
www.aimsdata.com/tim


"Dennis Bronstein" <dbronstein@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3b56ffa4$1@news.devx.com:

> Seems to me that since it's so important for Sun to retain control of
> Java they should make an XP runtime themselves. Why should MS do it
> for them?
>
> Dennis
>
> "Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns90E37340BBC0Btimromano@209.1.14.192...
>> I read that XP will not ship with a java runtime. If true, that will
>> strike a more severe blow to Java than the default security settings.
>> I agree that such moves are anti-competitive, in that they are
>> actions, taken by a monopolist, that disrupt applications using
>> competing technologies. Tim Romano
>> www.aimsdata.com/tim
>>
>
>
>
>

[Dennis Bronstein]

"Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90E3C440BF025timromano@209.1.14.192...
>
> (2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder of
> significant market-share does not have.

And when did Sun submit Java to a standards body?

[Tim Romano]

"Dennis Bronstein" <dbronstein@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3b58427f@news.devx.com:

> "Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns90E3C440BF025timromano@209.1.14.192...
>>
>> (2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder of
>> significant market-share does not have.
>
> And when did Sun submit Java to a standards body?
>

That Sun did or did not submit Java to a standards body is beside the
point.
Tim Romano

[Dennis Bronstein]

No, it's the same point. Sun has a monopoly on Java. It's not Microsoft's
responsibility to make sure it works on Windows, it's Sun's.

"Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90E479AF5D33Atimromano@209.1.14.192...
> "Dennis Bronstein" <dbronstein@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3b58427f@news.devx.com:
>
> > "Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns90E3C440BF025timromano@209.1.14.192...
> >>
> >> (2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder of
> >> significant market-share does not have.
> >
> > And when did Sun submit Java to a standards body?
> >
>
> That Sun did or did not submit Java to a standards body is beside the
> point.
> Tim Romano

[Tim Romano]

Your concepts of "monopoly" are uninformed.
Tim Romano

"Dennis Bronstein" <dbronstein@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3b58576e$1@news.devx.com:

> No, it's the same point. Sun has a monopoly on Java. It's not
> Microsoft's responsibility to make sure it works on Windows, it's
> Sun's.
>
> "Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns90E479AF5D33Atimromano@209.1.14.192...
>> "Dennis Bronstein" <dbronstein@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3b58427f@news.devx.com:
>>
>> > "Tim Romano" <tim_romano@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns90E3C440BF025timromano@209.1.14.192...
>> >>
>> >> (2) Microsoft, as a monopoly, has obligations that a mere holder of
>> >> significant market-share does not have.
>> >
>> > And when did Sun submit Java to a standards body?
>> >
>>
>> That Sun did or did not submit Java to a standards body is beside the
>> point. Tim Romano
>
>
>

[David Kroll]

"Debbie Locker" <dlocker@possie.org> wrote:
>
>Unpublicized changes to security settings and their definitions in the current
>beta of Windows XP could deny millions of users email and web browser access
>to Internet content enabled through Java applets.

You know, sometimes I really feel sorry for Microsoft. First, people get
on their case because their software isn't secure enough. Then, when they
try to do something about it, people get on their case for making their software
unreasonably secure. I guess when you are a company as visible as Microsoft,
you won't be able to please everybody.

I would also like to add the following:

1. The Java security model is not air tight. There are documented exploits
that one can take advantage of, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are
exploits that have yet to be discovered. Any time you download and run code
on your machine, you should be wary.

2. If somebody wants to run a Java applet in their browser, they are free
to adjust the settings. That's what the settings are there for. They allow
people to take control of their environment.