Comments on: JavaFX warns against itself on Macs http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1092-javafx-warns-against-itself-on-macs.html Tech writing blog Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:25:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Eric Buitenhuis http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1092-javafx-warns-against-itself-on-macs.html/comment-page-1#comment-121852 Eric Buitenhuis Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:08:02 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1092-javafx-warns-against-itself-on-macs.html#comment-121852 Like you mentioned, it has everything to do with who signed the certificate. For their samples, they include self-signing certs, which will encrypt like normal...just nobody to verify the "you are who you say you are" part. However, it also affects how the app will handle its cross-site scripting. Either way, keep in mind that JavaFX apps aren't meant to be simple and pretty flash animation replacements as much as they are meant to be used for RIA solutions. You typically only need to answer the security question once, and if you use the RIA for work or another regular, routine use, you will likely forget you ever had to take the extra second to click the button, since subsequent loads don't require it. Moreover, a good production-level app ought to be signed properly anyway :) Like you mentioned, it has everything to do with who signed the certificate. For their samples, they include self-signing certs, which will encrypt like normal…just nobody to verify the “you are who you say you are” part. However, it also affects how the app will handle its cross-site scripting.

Either way, keep in mind that JavaFX apps aren’t meant to be simple and pretty flash animation replacements as much as they are meant to be used for RIA solutions. You typically only need to answer the security question once, and if you use the RIA for work or another regular, routine use, you will likely forget you ever had to take the extra second to click the button, since subsequent loads don’t require it. Moreover, a good production-level app ought to be signed properly anyway :)

]]> By: John Carter http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1092-javafx-warns-against-itself-on-macs.html/comment-page-1#comment-115683 John Carter Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:45:00 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/1092-javafx-warns-against-itself-on-macs.html#comment-115683 I total agree and the browser should never ask the above question. It is actually telling you that the certificate cannot be trusted although it is correctly formatted. It means that I could have created the certificate myself with Sun's identity. Normally you can't issue your own certificates, only a recognised entity like verisign has the right. By answering yes to the above, you are rendering your security useless and only someone with detailed knowledge of SSL would know what it means anyway. I blame Internet Explorer for starting this as it ask so many pointless questions, people invariable click 'yes' to everything. Firefox is not much better and safari only a little better than the others. Too much choice is as bad as too little. John. I total agree and the browser should never ask the above question. It is actually telling you that the certificate cannot be trusted although it is correctly formatted. It means that I could have created the certificate myself with Sun’s identity. Normally you can’t issue your own certificates, only a recognised entity like verisign has the right.

By answering yes to the above, you are rendering your security useless and only someone with detailed knowledge of SSL would know what it means anyway.

I blame Internet Explorer for starting this as it ask so many pointless questions, people invariable click ‘yes’ to everything. Firefox is not much better and safari only a little better than the others. Too much choice is as bad as too little.

John.

]]>