From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5882b8e137d950f8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: swhalen@netcom.com
Subject: Re: DII COE bars Ada -> Java compilation
Date: 2000/04/07
Message-ID: <8clelb$q3b$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 608121707
References: <38EB3482.971747E4@lmco.com> <8cfg7m$qbd$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <38EDE91D.C6A9EC19@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
Organization: ?
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990517 ("Psychonaut") (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wes Groleau <wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> wrote:

:> > .... such compilers may inadvertently bypass intended Java security
:> > features."
:> >
:> > Is this a legitimate concern?  I can kinda see how it might be, since
:> 
:> I should hope not. If the security is built into the language rather
:> than into the virtual machine, then anyone could bypass the security
:> just by writing themselves a program in "bytecode assembly".

: And in fact, one security report I read described a security hole that
: could be exploited by a byte-code assembler but which was prevented by
: a "correct" Java compiler.

I suspect this same "security expert" would also say your house was
safe if burglars would use only "approved" breaking and entering tools
<g>.

Steve

-- 
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}
                Steve Whalen     swhalen@netcom.com
{===--------------------------------------------------------------===}