Microsoft to Offer Office Source Code
Under Shared Source

"Code Access Security (CAS) ? "Guilty
until proven Innocent" (Partially
Trusted Code) "

CA tool kit enables shared security
controls to be integrated with existing
apps

Microsoft issues warning to downloaders
of leaked source code

SQL Security Issues

Other News: Security Issues

Can An Apple A Day Keep Security Issues
At Bay?

Are we just living with Security Issues?

Cisco issues another security warning

Notes and Tips: Security Issues

phpBB Issues Security Update

Security Issues in Rediff Bol Messenger

abuse & security issues > Israel

It now appears that all of OS's have
security issues

abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/ZDM/mac_vulnerablility_pcmag_0 31211.html
track this site | 5 links

Yahoo issues security patch for IM

Microsoft Issues Security Patches

Microsoft issues security update

smart thinking about IM security issues

The continuing saga of IE Security
Issues

Apple issues Mac OS X security patch

Microsoft issues seven security patches,
two critical

Apple issues iChat security fix
(MacCentral)

Windows-Based PCs Plagued By Security
Issues

@Stake issues security advisories for OS
X Jaguar

Apple issues revised security update

@Stake issues security advisories for
Jaguar

New Online Ventures Get Help With
Internet Security Issues

Opera Problems -- Security Issues, New
Version

Mac or PC? Windows' security issues help
some users choose

Microsoft issues April security updates

Apple issues QuickTime security patch

Sybase ASE Multiple Security Issues
(#NISR05042005)

Apple Will Be Patching Jaguar Security
Issues

Paper maker documents key IT security
issues

Cisco issues wireless Lan security alert

NIST Issues Windows XP Security Guide

OOPS 0.1001

1001 Things To Hate About The Convention

HotFix Watch: Win32 Error = 1072 error
appears after you change the SMS 2.0
Service account of a secondary site

Cliex32.dll Error 126 Error in
Wnmanual.log

Advanced Error Handling: Writing an
Error Handling Class

Disabling Microsoft Windows XP Error
Reporting Services

Microsoft error on maps dents its ties
with India

Microsoft SQL Server 7.0 databases
monitoring – 1105 / 9002 error
recovering PART1

404 error

I found this funny 404 error message on SDForum's Web site:

Either BOF or EOF is True, or the current record has been deleted. Requested operation requires a current record.

PXE-E51 Error

Error

livejournal.com/tools/memadd.bml?journal=jmhm&itemid=959603
track this site | 2 links

Read error

Spot the Error

More on XML Error Handling

I thought I'd respond to a few of the comments I received:

Many people suggested that there be a built-in validator in the browser that could show the errors to the developer. The validators basically break down into two types: obtrusive validators and unobtrusive validators.

If the validator is unobtrusive, then I would argue that it won't receive sufficient usage to make a difference. If the browser doesn't impose a penalty of some kind, then there will be no incentive for the author to correct mistakes.

I can see the value of an obtrusive validator, as long as the obtrusive part was only checking well-formedness (i.e., really basic mistakes).

(2) Some people pointed out that my own blog was not valid. I have two responses to that:

(a) I am not arguing for perfectly valid XML documents. I am arguing for well-formed XML documents. There is a difference. I think asking that the page be well-formed is setting the bar fairly low. For example, one of the current errors on this blog is that I have two elements with the same id. While this makes the blog invalid, it does not have any effect on the blog being well-formed. At least I don't think it does. :)

(b) I'm illustrating a point, namely that I have no reason to make the blog valid, given that browsers will display the blog anyway.

(3) People complained that I wasn't serving up XHTML. I can't actually serve up XHTML if I want the blog to be displayable in all browsers, including Safari, which still has sufficient issues with XHTML that I can't make that switch yet.

(4) My comments on HTML error handling were largely misinterpreted.

Some people thought I was attacking WinIE for its permissive handling of HTML. I was not, and I'm glad others appreciated that fact. Back in the 90s WinIE had to emulate the permissive error handling of the then-dominant browser Netscape. They had no choice if they wanted Web sites to be viewable as the designer intended. They were in the same position then that Safari is in now.

Nor am I suggesting that WinIE should become less tolerant of malformed HTML, or that they are at fault for not doing so. That is simply not a logical conclusion to have drawn from my previous comments. You can't take a Web site (even a malformed one) that works a certain way and suddenly refuse to render it or even render it radically differently than before.

For HTML, this issue was resolved long ago in favor of permissive error handling and recovery, and no modern browser is to blame for that situation.

Others said a browser that handles malformed HTML is better than one that does not, and if Safari doesn't handle all this malformed HTML, then it's simply not as capable a browser.

What amused me about this comment is that there is no definition of what it means to handle malformed HTML. As long as a browser shows you something and doesn't crash, it has handled the malformed HTML. What people don't understand is that you don't simply have to handle the malformed HTML. You have to handle it in exactly the same way as the Web browser that the site author designed for.

If you do not, you'll end up with different renderings of the same page, which as I said before, constitute the largest set of rendering differences between Web browsers. Perfect emulation is what makes error recovery so difficult. If you allow grossly malformed pages, then most XML on the Web will end up being grossly malformed (as is the case with HTML today).

Once you have a Web full of grossly malformed XML, there will be one dominant browser that designers will check to see if the site looks ok. They will then make assumptions that other browsers will recover from the malformation errors in precisely the same way and will simply assume that it is the fault of the other browsers if they don't.

Right now it is the responsibility of alternate browsers to emulate the dominant browser's error recovery strategies, but there's simply no reason to do that for XML as well.

Error-Wait-0.03

404 ERROR - Ultrashock.com

ultrashock.com/404
track this site | 4 links

Error in SMS RTM Documentation

Margins of Error

Blue Or Red? Error Or Not?

Error-Wait-0.01

Error In Downloading

Error-Wait-0.02

Error in fink-0.22.0

Access Error

c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r157808591
track this site | 3 links

Database Error

XML Error Reporting II

Responding to comments in the previous blog entry:

(1) Some people thought this was a hacked expat. Darin actually switched Safari over to libxml2, so the error messages you're seeing (as well as the ability to continue parsing) are all built in to libxml2.

(2) Do you think it's better to show the page only up to the first error or to try to display the entire page (with the understanding that what follows the first error could be very badly mangled)?

(3) Often there are a lot of meaningless errors after the first. I could put a cap on the number of displayed errors to deal with this problem or just not worry about it. What do people think?

(4) Those of you who suggested drawers for errors, remember a drawer is a UI element in Safari and not WebKit. This feature should just work out of the box for WebKit clients, so I'm inclined not to use drawers or sheets, but to just display the errors at the top of the page.

VBScript Error with FTM

A possible fix for an iTunes 4.8 error
400

SMS FAQ: Error Code 53

On "Feedbag Error 17"...

A couple of days ago I noticed that I couldn't add Azeem Azhar to my iChat AV contacts list. I kept getting returned "Feedbag Error 17" which seemed entirely unexpected and unpleasantly phrased. Was I a feedbag? Had iChat eaten Azeem? The mind boggled.

After several hours of consideration, another option occurred to me. Perhaps iChat was trying to protect me from excessive contact with Azeem! Maybe my beautiful new Pantherised beast was being defensive! "No, Tom!" It was going, "He's bad news! He'll tell you that you work in Marketing again and you'll get all cross and defensive and make that ludicrous speech about being an artisan! Please! Please! Let me protect you from the embarrassment!" At which point, I assumed, feedbag laptop decided to chow-down on poor Mr Azhar's AIM name with fierce hungry vengeance. I touted this theory around a few of my friends. General consensus, "It's not a bug, it's a feature!"

Well now I know that I'm not alone and that it's nothing personal, Mr Azhar! My Powerbook loves you and iChat loves you and all I had to do was throw away a couple of my childhood friends who - frankly - are never online anyway and kind of sucked at web stuff. In the end the problem was all caused by having too many friends - apparently AIM can only handle 150 contacts - at least that is according to Mssrs. Unsanity, Rael and Webb.

But it occurs to me that there's something slightly suspicious about all of this. A couple of days ago I tried searching for information about this error message, but it was nowhere. There was literally no information. Today, there's a search result returned, and posts about the subject on three separate weblogs. So what's happened? Is it a new error message or is it just we've all hit the limit at the same time? Or has the number of buddies available changed? I smell a mystery!

Read the comments

Security issues of using shared code