Security Policy in the v4 CLR

Security Policy in the v4 CLR | Microsoft Share Point

Security Policy in the v4 CLR | Microsoft Share Point — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:26:15 GMT

PingBack from http://microsoft-sharepoint.simplynetdev.com/security-policy-in-the-v4-clr/

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

Timothy Fries — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:53:46 GMT

How far does this extend?

Can an application still create a sandboxed AppDomain (without needing to opt back in to the full managed policy on the primary AppDomain)?

Is the Strong Name signature of a referenced assembly that's not located in the GAC still verified by the loader when loaded into a context where the managed security policy is disabled?

And finally, is there an MSDN article that describes the change in more detail?

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

shawnfa — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:08:19 GMT

Hi Timothy,

You can absolutely still create a sandboxed domain - in that aspect you're acting as a bit of a host yourself ... you're creating a sandbox to host untrusted code within. Instead of using policy to setup that domain however, you should instead use the simple sandbox APIs to do so.

Non-GACed assemblies will not have their strong name signautres verified in the default domain of an unhosted application since they will be fully trusted without the use of their signature (http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnfa/archive/2008/05/14/strong-name-bypass.aspx)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233103(VS.100).aspx is the best starting point in MSDN for the v4 changes.

-Shawn

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

Stephen Cleary — Fri, 22 May 2009 03:12:36 GMT

Thank you!

I'm glad to hear that this long-standing pain point has finally been resolved.

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

Tom — Fri, 22 May 2009 10:00:07 GMT

Hi Shawn,

picking up Dominick's idea I totally agree with him that it'd be a great idea to convince you to write a book on .NET 4.0 Security. Please think about starting that book project.

In the meantime: Thanks for starting this very useful series of articles!

-- Tom

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

Smith Daves — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:33:40 GMT

What means "unhosted applications"?

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

Andy Mackie — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:40:23 GMT

Are there any changes in how CAS applies to XBAP and ClickOnce apps ? I'm thinking specifically of clickonce & xbap apps with Intranet permissions, rather than Internet.

When things work ClickOnce deployment is great, but when the dreaded "Trust not granted" pops up, it's a right pain to sort! Admittedly, some of it is a developer education issue re. CAS/caspol.

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

shawnfa — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:17:17 GMT

Hi Smith,

An unhosted application is basically just a managed .exe that you run directly. That is, it's not run within a larger host (think ASP.NET, SQL Server, or as an addin in another application for instance).

-Shawn

re: Security Policy in the v4 CLR

shawnfa — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:18:25 GMT

Hi Andy,

ClickOnce will still evaluate what permissions it thinks is safe for an application to request based upon where the application is coming from. If the app is requesting more than that safe set, it will continue with its v3.5 behavior of prompting the user to allow the elevation.

-Shawn

Sandboxing in .NET 4.0

.NET Security Blog — Fri, 22 May 2009 20:54:24 GMT

Yesterday I talked about the changes in security policy for managed applications , namely that managed

Coding with Security Policy in .NET 4 part 2 – Explicit uses of CAS policy

.NET Security Blog — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:15:02 GMT

Over the last few posts, I’ve been looking at how the update to the CLR v4 security policy interacts

Temporarily re-enabling CAS policy during migration

.NET Security Blog — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:27:13 GMT

Over the last few weeks we’ve been looking at the changes to security policy in .NET 4, namely that security

CLR v4 Security Policy Roundup

.NET Security Blog — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:33:40 GMT

Over the last few weeks we’ve been taking a look at the updates to the CLR security policy system in