Talk:Code Access Security

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject .NET.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]