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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6e3f191debc78584
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:58:10 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 06:57:57 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
Subject: Re: Can Ada be hacked?
In-Reply-To: <op.vryhqjvrule2fv@douda-yannick>
Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1103070653070.5600@WHIRLWIND>
References: 
 <215154cd-f0bf-4138-b294-776d4e058592@o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
 <2561745b-7720-470d-a6ee-67f1d0e8cff0@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
 <alpine.WNT.2.00.1103011448150.1264@WHIRLWIND>
 <op.vryhqjvrule2fv@douda-yannick>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (WNT 1167 2008-08-23)
X-X-Sender: pcc09070@vtc.vsc.edu@webmail.vtc.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1218479-27674-1299499089=:5600"
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-jCbi980Sv5ie4v2Vu217v2d73mAQplul6IhWd3MRZ3Ri1m/VlX7jC/Pub9zLzOwoy8fCRIxOtXcOJZM!fuJR088zqzv9a+7auJO7JO6iGRSOcWNJDcwHl6KDMHRPGPYF+ChiKz9u9Qb8hBs9OLOdxtWS+g==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3320
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18911
Date: 2011-03-07T06:57:57-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--1218479-27674-1299499089=:5600
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (Hibou57) wrote:

> I'm afraid nobody would care. What made FireFox popular among=20
> self-so-called =E2=80=9Cgeeks=E2=80=9D, was plugins (Mozilla get a lot of=
 free advertising=20
> via buzzes generated by the plugins/addons fever). Just a very few little=
=20
> people are interested in application source, even more true with a=20
> browser. What matters is (ordered by relevancy): 1) is it free to downloa=
d=20
> ? 2) will this play YouTube and DailyMotion medias fine ? 3) Will this=20
> help me to look =E2=80=9Cgeeky=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cfashioned=E2=80=9D in=
 others eyes ?

You are probably right but some sort of ultra reliable browser might be of=
=20
itnerest to certain niche markets. I've had a few problems interacting with=
=20
my bank due to browser quirks (JavaScript incompatibilities?) and that=20
didn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. Of course the first step in=20
creating such a browser would probably be to ban plugins and maybe even to=
=20
ban JavaScript. I'm sure that wouldn't be popular among casual users (which=
=20
includes myself most of the time).

Peter

> P.S.2. If JavaScript appeared to be unsafe, this was primarily because it=
=20
> was a first target to attack. I am not sure even SPARK would be enough to=
=20
> prevent all troubles when so much energy is dedicated to break security=
=20
> (that's not just a matter of things like buffer overflows or out-of-range=
=20
> values).

One could perhaps implement a JavaScript with extra run time checking at th=
e=20
JavaScript language level. I really don't know. Of course it would run more=
=20
slowly.
--1218479-27674-1299499089=:5600--