Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Ah ActiveX -- a gold mine for malicious actors.


sort by: page size:

I think you just described ActiveX.

ActiveX would like to have a word with you.

Oh ActiveX was definitely worse, I should know since I was using the internet plenty when it was prominent. My point is, though, that malicious actors still basically control the web. They may not be executing native code without any controls, but that doesn't mean that the modern web isn't still their playground.

Lucky they aren't the world's biggest abuser of activeX...oh wait.

Remember ActiveX?

That sounds like ActiveX 2.0 at best, and an utter security nightmare at worst.

>ActiveX security plugin

Irony at its finest


Just the word "ActiveX" brings about nightmares.

Oh right, and ActiveX!

This reminds me a bit of ActiveX.

This is correct. The ActiveX is very, very real.

That's an argument that holds ActiveX in high regard, isn't it?

AKA ActiveX in Microsoft land...

It’s not as bad currently, but 10 years ago it wasn’t that unusual to find things like government and bank websites using freaking ActiveX.

These days I would imagine it means things like not publishing videos with (only) proprietary codecs, or using some sort of non-standard non-open 2fa or something.


ActiveX is back. Can't wait to see all the exploits escaping the browser sandbox.

You're thinking of ActiveX.

That isn't what I was talking about.

Regarding ActiveX, ever heard of this thing called WebAssembly?

"USENIX Security '20 - Everything Old is New Again: Binary Security of WebAssembly"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glL__xjviro

"USENIX Security '21 - Swivel: Hardening WebAssembly against Spectre"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLAHmnIkg24


The purveyors of ActiveX objecting to something on "security" grounds: that's almost too rich for words.

Is ActiveX more dangerous than Java applets? If so, that's news to me, but I'm all ears.
next

Legal | privacy