Talk:Code Access Security

Comment

Could someone please clearify that CAS / CLR is not a sandbox due to the verifier being incomplete / inexact by design? And that the class-library is not reference-safe? The last change was reverted due to lack of clear examples.

Or could someone post any reference to Microsoft claiming that .NET/CLR would be a sandbox at all? Until then, one should at least remove that claim.

Here you go: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/wpfsecuritysandbox.asp
Microsoft has noted that the CLR verifier sometimes rejects safe code as unsafe but I haven't seen any documented claim that it accepts unsafe code as safe.
Leotohill 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong names vs. Signatures

Strong names as evidence are not the same thing as X.509 certificate signatures---strong names can be generated from self-created private keys, for instance. See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163583.aspx for an example of the difference. Certificates and signatures are a much more involved (and effective) security measure, the entry should probably distinguish them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.99.81 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete technology?

I think CAS has been obsolete for some time now. See the comments on Microsoft's page here [1]: "CAS is not supported in .NET Core, .NET 5, or later versions. CAS is not supported by versions of C# later than 7.0" -- plus other warnings about not using it. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.