(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cnet/tco ... qiGvBFNTI/

"The default security level for Java applets and web start applications has been increased from 'medium' to 'high," Oracle said in an advisory today. "This affects the conditions under which unsigned (sandboxed) Java web applications can run. Previously, as long as you had the latest secure Java release installed applets and web start applications would continue to run as always. With the 'high' setting the user is always warned before any unsigned application is run to prevent silent exploitation."

The vulnerability was being exploited by a zero-day Trojan horse called Mal/JavaJar-B, which was already identified as attacking Windows, Linux and Unix systems and being distributed in exploit kits "Blackhole" and "NuclearPack," making it far more convenient to attackers.

... I know there are some who advocate still running java v6 ...

Yeah. Seems I seen several references that indicates HMS is about V7.

By not including a V6 reference in the OP, one could surmise that the OP is about all JAVA . Or further by not including you leave all JAVA open to suspect. I don't think you intended that, though.

You be the judge.

gcmartin wrote:

... I know there are some who advocate still running java v6 ...

Yeah. Seems I seen several references that indicates HMS is about V7.

By not including a V6 reference in the OP, one could surmise that the OP is about all JAVA . Or further by not including you leave all JAVA open to suspect. I don't think you intended that, though.

You be the judge.

I'll add something about it. Dont know the best way to frame it though.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01 ... t-version/

Java 6, which Oracle is still supporting for the time being, hasn't been vulnerable to most of the recent exploits, although security experts remain mixed on whether it is a more secure alternative to Java 7. Gowdiak said one of the vulnerabilities Security Explorations discovered this week works on both versions while the other works only on Java 7.

jpeps wrote:

Q5sys wrote:... and on top of that... its unknown if some new exploits work against it.

No it isn't. There are no computer languages that can't be exploited. Bash can be exploited.

I know there are some who advocate still running java v6, but that's not necessarily the best choice for people...

Java is running on a few billion devices. Now that you've informed us, I'm sure everyone will proceed to delete it. Thanks for sharing.

You are taking this WAY out of context. I create a simple informative thread, that people can use to check to see if they are using the most up-to-date java version and if there are known exploits that have not been patched.
And you exaggerate to the point of sarcasm suggesting advocating java be deleted.

Can you not have an intelligent discussion about this? You have stated 'facts' which are in fact wrong. Then you take a mindset, which NO ONE HERE has had, and sarcastically comment about deleting Java from a computer.
I have not once advocated that people delete java. I dont know of anyone else who has either. If you can point to where people have suggested that on this forum, please link to that. Or is this another wild unsubstantiated argument? Or are you simply trolling this thread with wild comments because you have nothing better to do?

James C wrote:http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01 ... t-version/

Java 6, which Oracle is still supporting for the time being, hasn't been vulnerable to most of the recent exploits, although security experts remain mixed on whether it is a more secure alternative to Java 7. Gowdiak said one of the vulnerabilities Security Explorations discovered this week works on both versions while the other works only on Java 7.

Added section about Legacy 6u38 release in first post. It appears the bug that didnt get patched is the one that only affects v7.

From what I have read so far on the net, javascript is not prone to the security risks that java 7 is.
Also installing an earlier version of java is not the answer as they also had security problems.

8-bit wrote:From what I have read so far on the net, javascript is not prone to the security risks that java 7 is.
Also installing an earlier version of java is not the answer as they also had security problems.

When was the last time you needed a java plugin?

In the versions of Puppy I run with Seamonkey as the browser, I have looked and I can find JavaScript, but not Java.
So, does that mean that to have Java (full), one needs to install it?
I run Seamonkey and have never missed not having Java as JavaScript seems to handle most everything.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

8-bit wrote:In the versions of Puppy I run with Seamonkey as the browser, I have looked and I can find JavaScript, but not Java.
So, does that mean that to have Java (full), one needs to install it?
I run Seamonkey and have never missed not having Java as JavaScript seems to handle most everything.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

I thought you asked that in another thread; they're two different things with similar names. Web developers generally stopped using Java years ago. It's being used for other purposes. Javascript is an interpreted language coded into the web page; Java is a compiled language that runs applets on computers that have the JRE installed. Many developers switched to Flash (since the user doesn't have to have any preloaded software). I don't know if anyone has a linux browser that loads a java plugin; Firefox certainly doesn't and mozilla blocks java. * I just tested a chrome browser...plugins are only available for windows and mac.


Yes, you'd have to install it. I installed updated binaries as an SFS. Why? Because I can run very complex accounting software, etc., statically....everything works everywhere. Java used to be slow, but both computers and the JRE have improved, so that's no longer an issue. I expect that process to continue. Security? Well, if you get computer viruses that can run your java software, that wouldn't be very good. Systems like puppy are the most ideal, because getting viruses are rare (never heard of it) in addition to offering plenty of protections. So you can have the best of both worlds.

Updated

Q5sys wrote:Updated

I'm guessing that it's extremely unlikely that Oracle could prevent all exploits without completely rewriting the entire language from scratch....and perhaps not even then.

Notice how numerous exploits in Chrome were produced by teenagers when a cash reward was offered.

Personally, I'll continue to use Java for apps without any Java browser plugins (if any are available to begin with).

javascript is completely unrelated to java -it's just an unfortunate mistake in naming...

amigo wrote:javascript is completely unrelated to java -it's just an unfortunate mistake in naming...

Nobody was talking about javascript...we're updating the jre

Does the symlink exist- yes or no? Maybe check Shinobars`instructions..

Makoto wrote:I only install TheAsterisk!'s SFS versions of the JRE - no idea whether or not it creates that symlink. Wouldn't it have a bearing on the Mozilla Plugin Check page, too, though? You'd think that if the Mozilla page can find it, the Java page would...

This with the Asterisk!s`jre-1.7u13-i586.sfs loaded. NO problem..

@jpeps, someone said: "I can find JavaScript, but not Java." I was just responding to that. You seem a bit touchy with me, lately...

Semme: Not entirely sure why you moved this; my 'issue' isn't really security-related.

Semme wrote:Does the symlink exist- yes or no? Maybe check Shinobars`instructions..

See my post in the original thread here. (I posted while you were moving the discussion, apparently.)

Semme wrote:This with the Asterisk!s`jre-1.7u13-i586.sfs loaded. NO problem..

That page still doesn't work for me, but this page does:
http://www.java.com/en/download/testjava.jsp

As far as I can tell, I have all of the necessary symlinks (TheAsterisk!'s package actually appears to create them for ALL possible Mozilla browsers, including the Ice series), and I even briefly changed the Java console to show, rather than hide (as the Java website advises). Same results as above.

(Edit: Okay, that's weird. I just checked http://www.java.com/en/download/install ... detect=jre again, after posting this, and NOW, it's working. )

Nooo.. but it's not about Flash either. At any rate- good to hear you finally got it.

I'm surprised it only decided to start working because I posted about it.

OP Updated.
Java released a patch for 7u13 release, which is numbered 7u15
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topic ... PatchTable

No 6uX release, as it has reached End of Life.