[cap-talk] 'IX/Windows API problem for POLA? Polaris
Jed at Webstart
donnelley1 at webstart.com
Fri Nov 18 16:47:26 EST 2005
At 08:42 AM 11/18/2005, Karp, Alan H wrote:
> >...browser update ...
>"Polarizing" a browser doesn't change the browser in any way. It just
>sets up a shortcut for launching it in a different user account. An
>upgrade to your current browser requires no action. The same shortcut
>will launch the patched browser. Polarizing a new browser, say Firefox
>instead of IE, requires filling in two items on a form and clicking a
>button. A few seconds later you've got a shortcut to a protected
That sounds good. Then with regard to plugins? If I add, say,
a flash plugin to my browser, how does that addition work in
a POLA manner?
>The reason for polarizing just the browser on consumer machines is to
>reduce the support costs. Since most of the bad stuff gets onto those
>machines through the browser,
through plugins and such as above?
>this approach gives the most protection
>for the least risk of unexpected behavior. I did an experiment here at
>Labs with a very early version of Polaris. The only service calls I got
>were related to usability glitches that have since been fixed except for
>one IE bug that shows up under Polaris.
Of course one other area where "bad stuff" gets onto systems is when
people pick up executables from who knows where (e.g. email
attachments, software from Web site X, etc.) and run them. Does
Polaris provide help in that area - e.g. with a default minimal permission
set (e.g. muxed keyboard and a window) and then bringing up a "powerbox"
for any other access?
More information about the cap-talk