Talk:Code Access Security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the .NET WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the .NET content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

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)

[edit] 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)