| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft: IE Patch Breaking Web Sites | |
|
||
| Time: 08:19 EST/13:19 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
Updated: A recent multilayered "defense-in-depth" tweak to the functionality of the Internet Explorer browser is causing problems for some Web sites that use custom ActiveX controls. A defense-in-depth change to the functionality of Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer browser is causing problems for Web sites that use custom ActiveX controls. Partner Resource Center The MSRC (Microsoft Security Response Center) posted revisions to the last two IE security bulletins—MS05-038 and MS05-052—to explain the reasons why some Web sites are not loading after the IE patches are installed. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:30:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (66.183.189.115) at 11/4/2005 11:08:40 AM |
| The Autodesk DWF viewer? Quicktime, Flash, Java, Citrix Client, etc |
| #2 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 11/4/2005 3:30:41 PM |
|
#2: How do you suppose Quicktime, Flash, and Java even run on non-Windows systems? Your sporadic knowledge of the technology field as seen through MS zealot eyes continues to baffle me...
ActiveX was a dumb idea when first released and now current technologies render it obsolete. If any other company besides Microsoft had proposed, designed, developed, or continued to support ActiveX it would still be a dumb idea and redundant. |
| #3 By 37 (207.118.188.98) at 11/4/2005 4:48:40 PM |
| ActiveX is hardly a dumb idea. In fact, it's an awesome innovation. However, it was implemented poorly. ActiveX will continue to be an excellent tool. |
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 11/4/2005 4:51:06 PM |
|
"How do you suppose Quicktime, Flash, and Java even run on non-Windows systems?"
I don't really care since non-Windows systems are few and far between on the desktop. What I do care about is functionality. ActiveX works pretty good. It has some security problems, but nowhere near as many as Java has had, and less than .001% of the security problems open source vomits up every day. The attacks on ActiveX are just the usual diarrhea spewed out by Microsoft haters. |
| #5 By 23275 (209.149.207.40) at 11/4/2005 7:14:40 PM |
|
Ok, one last time.... ActiveX is a COM Client - like many others - Java RMI, CORBA, COM+, etc...
"Back from a self-imposed exile as I saw a colleague reading your site and lost it over this one" It was jointly developed by many companies, including Sun Microsystems and many thousands of web and other applications types use it for many purposes. As a COM Client - used for Remote Method Invocation [or to say it more simply, to cause remote code execution...], it is an astoundingly powerful and easy to use method. Thousands of controls are in use in apparent and transparent ways. Unlike other forms of COM/RMI, ActiveX was and when used properly, far safer and more secure than other methods - it was designed from the start to allow for signing and two part authentication. Now, the handling of any RMI wrapped code is where things can and do get harry - individual developers - not Microsoft control that - in fact, when Microsoft attempted even modest controls, the industry and its detractors used that effort to beat on them. With XP SP2, Microsoft changed how its applications handle both signed and unsigned COM Client controls - and yes, that included ActiveX variants of such controls - in what is, in my opinion, one of the most effective pieces of software engineering yet delivered - by any company. That part of SP2 alone merits very considerable praise. Finally [only because I'm pooped], Windows and IE are not the only web technologies that make use of, or can use ActiveX - Mozilla based browsers can support it, too. Also, many controls that are seen in IE as being ActiveX based, are not - many are actually alternate forms of COM Client Controls - each designed to enable and support RMI. XP SP2 manages them, too. For AW - you all need to use a smart-client and auto-link key words and phrases in posts to a verified FAQ - so your readers can access the truth and the history behind technologies. Truth be told, most of your readers would soil themselves if they knew exactly how many COM Client controls exist in the software they use each day - they'd not ever speak about ActiveX in the same way again. |
| #6 By 17996 (66.188.88.180) at 11/4/2005 7:32:38 PM |
|
Thanks for the post, lketchum, you're absolutely correct.
ActiveX is no different than any other plugin architecture (e.g. Firefox extensions, Netscape lugins) wherein you can run native code. (As opposed to Java and .NET which are not native code and thus can be sandboxed.) IE 7 is introducing ActiveX opt-in, which means that even when an ActiveX control is already installed on your system, you will need to explicitly authorize it to run in IE (the first time). I can't wait to see the headlines that come out of this -- if people think things are "breaking" today, just you wait... (It is a very good move though.) |
| #7 By 1845 (67.172.237.116) at 11/5/2005 11:34:31 PM |
|
ActiveX is COM. Period. It's third generation OLE (OLE was its first name, then COM, then ActiveX). It's not some special form of COM, it just is COM. It's not a COM client. An ActiveX control (or any other ActiveX component) is a COM server. (The thing that implements IUnknown is the COM server, the thing that consumes it is the COM client.) Java RMI and CORBA have nothing to do with COM directly. They are both attempts to solve the problems that DCOM addressed, but they certainly are not part of COM/ActiveX/DCOM. ActiveX is a Microsoft binary specification and never was, so far as I have ever heard, a joint venture with Sun (especially with Sun) or anyone else. (If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see the links.)
There is nothing innately wrong with ActiveX any more than any other coding technology. It enabled re-usable components. It enabled cross language development. It even enabled component sharing from compiled langauages to scripting languages. It is a very powerful and very useful technology. On that much, we agree. This post was edited by BobSmith on Saturday, November 05, 2005 at 23:40. |
| #8 By 1845 (67.172.237.116) at 11/5/2005 11:34:51 PM |
| I think I should stay retired too. |
| #9 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 11/6/2005 1:08:05 AM |
|
Bob, ActiveX has two parts, Active Server and Active Client. REF: CPSC 547, 1996.
The Active Client is cross-platform. ActiveX can be very confusing because it applies to a whole set of COM-based technologies. Most people; however, think only of ActiveX controls, which represent a specific way of implementing COM. Software AG, IBM [390], Digital, HP and Sun all worked with Microsoft at various times as each worked to support a multi-platform DCOM environment. We could go on for weeks documenting how much more ActiveX is than as it began, a name for the third generation of COM [OLE, OCX...]. One should take care not to restrict perceptions based upon only one part of what ActiveX is. As a very powerful "Open" tool, ActiveX is in fact goverened by the Open Group, but provided leadership by Microsoft. Sun's Java and ActiveX play well together, because ActiveX does have two parts - Note here, The ActiveX Control written in about any laguage one likes... then onto...the signed/secure RMI...onto the Client side of ActiveX where it wraps the last part....A Java Applet (in this example). The members of the Open Group "must" work with one another - they each had the same goal...multi-platform support - so, as OLE grew and became COM, OCX, it became named, ActiveX. The reality is that ActiveX is a COM Architecture consisting of many parts contributed by many companies, and yes, CORBA and Java RMI attempt to do many of the same things, but you are right in one sense - they do not do as much - they are not as much of an architecture. COM, by the by, has now been deprecated by .NET for net apps - though many principles evolved under ActiveX are applied. The biggest part of that I disagree with you on is that A/X "is COM" - no, it is so much more and that is why the name evolved in the first place. Anthony Williams' work on the architecture and his various books on related subjects are probably the best place for people to learn more about these technologies. The really important part I want to share is that it is an architecture and it deserves so much more than to be holed into one part of that architecture. Above all, if used as designed, it can be an incredibly secure and powerful development tool. This post was edited by lketchum on Sunday, November 06, 2005 at 01:08. |
| #10 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 11/6/2005 1:20:57 AM |
|
Oh, and from Sun's own work,
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/guide/beans/axbridge/developerguide/index.html#supported "Rember what I said in my first post, that many controls one may see are not actually ActiveX - ..." Another important part - these companies have very similar goals and despite the noise in the press, they have and continue to work a lot more closely with one another and each others' technologies and methods....note too, Sun's "beans" are Trade Marked. Have you ever seen ActiveX so marked? Remember, it is governed by the "Open Group" - point here is that those held out as "open" aren't so much, and those branded as closed, aren't nearly so closed [minded]. From Sun's own FAQ and Developers Forum FAQ: "Sun has worked closely with Microsoft to ensure compatibility within each company's respective products." This post was edited by lketchum on Sunday, November 06, 2005 at 01:26. |
| #11 By 1845 (67.172.237.116) at 11/6/2005 11:23:43 AM |
|
You're confusing COM, ActiveX, and DCOM. ActiveX is COM whether you like it or not. Any COM/ActiveX object (no, I'm not limiting the use of ActiveX to controls nor did I in my previous post) can be used via DCOM. Innately, there is no remoting in COM or ActiveX. Remoting is provided via DCOM.
I know there is a difference between an ActiveX server (COM server) and an ActiveX client (COM client) and I so stated in my previous post. A COM server is the component itself, while a COM client is the consumer of the component. It's really that simple. No remote procedure call or remote method invocation. If you want to talk about that, then you need to talk about DCOM...which is not the same thing. DCOM is an extension to OLE/COM/ActiveX. In IE (since IE 6 was introduced in 2001), I believe every control is ActiveX. IE 6 doesn't support any other plug-in architecture (talking things in pages, no browser help obects). Names. Microsoft changes the names of things at the drop of a hat. "Active" and "X" (together and separate) were the killer app of marketing in the late 90's just like ".NET" was in the early '00s. I hope you aren't resting your argument on a name change from a company that doesn't even keep the same name of a product from version to version or within the same version (Microsoft Office XP, but Microsoft Outlook 2002). You said "ActiveX is a COM Client - like many others - Java RMI, CORBA, COM+, etc... " You've not shown that Java RMI or CORBA is a COM client. You glossed over that then showed a link from Java 1.4. If you want to demonstrate that Sun and Microsoft collaborated on ActiveX (as you also claimed), then you'd need something from Java 1.0 and would not be a bridge between Java and COM, it would be a statement that Java RMI objects are COM objects. Good luck with that one. I can use COM objects from .NET, but that doesn't make the COM objects .NET objects...the wrapper is a .NET object but the underlying component is just as COM (and not .NET) as it ever was. The same applies to Java. You do know that DCOM competes with CORBA, don't you? I can't believe you say CORBA is built on or has anything to do with COM. Microsoft, Active Directory, ActiveMovie, ActiveX, BackOffice, ClearType, Developer Studio, Direct3D, Direct Animation, DirectDraw, DirectInput, DirectMusic, DirectPlay, DirectShow, DirectSound, DirectX, IntelliMouse, JScript, Microsoft Press, MSDN, MSN, MS-DOS, Natural, NetMeeting, NetShow, Sidewalk, Visual Basic, Visual C++, Visual C#, Visual FoxPro, Visual J++, Visual Studio, WebTV, Win32, Win32s, Windows, Windows NT, and Windows Server are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sdkintro/sdkintro/legal_information_sdk.asp ActiveX is very much a Microsoft trademark. For the record, UNIX is a trademark of The Open Group. If you want to give me links (not more of your opinions) that state the prove your assertions (list below), I'll continue posting. Otherwise, have a good one, I'm out. Sun and Microsoft collaborated on ActiveX in the 90's. ActiveX is more than COM. Microsoft does not own the trademark for ActiveX. Many controls that are seen in IE as being ActiveX based, are not |
| #12 By 1845 (67.172.237.116) at 11/6/2005 12:19:42 PM |
| There is a flaw in my previous post...can you spot it? I'll give you a hint, it's in a paragraph with the term ActiveX. :-) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 168 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:30:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
