New signed active X controler, run any game in an IE web browser

#1 Tried one of the demos and it asked me if I wanted to continue installing the control, though it recommended against it(!?). Encountered visual artifacts relating to alpha channels, then it crashed during play. Other than those bugs, it wasn't so bad...

Quote:no matter what engine you use, TGE, DB, blitz etc.

But if the control converts the game to Flash, which is how that site comes across, then how would it affect 3D games? The examples on the site don't address much of that, though it does look nice for things that convert cleanly to 2D. It's an interesting concept, though.

#2 Nah it doesn't convert anything to flash, it just runs any executable which means that potentialy it could be a virus. He put the popup message advising you not to run his activeX as a warning since you could be running anything including a virus. It just runs executables.

I think the demo version has the disclaimer so that your warned whilst the retail version allows you to put up your own message.

I think we will be trying it with our puzzle game Market Value see if it helps draw visitors to MV when they come looking for Aerial Antics.

#3 Not to steal the thread (too much at least), I have an ActiveX plugin that works exactly like the BraveTree ThinkTanks one - downloads and installs your game through IE.

Will be put up for sale just on the other side of xmas (thats the plan) including sources. Still waiting for GG to respond on this before I can say anything about pricing and availability

You seriously want/need the sources for anything like this, as with an ActiveX installer you definitely need control of the security measures implemented. If anyone hijacks any part of the chain, he can install virus+backdoors+anything else he wants.

#4 I am going to check this out, but I would tend to agree with Thomas.. an active x control that can be purchased by anyone (and is already signed) is just asking for hackers to take it over. I would agree that you would want control over the security here.

It would be interesting to see someone get this and stick a TGE game into it.. my feeling is that it will not be as easy and bug free as the marketing on the page suggests.

#5 @Thomas - Some thoughts on your control. The reason we never released our control is for concerns about security. We were concerned that if we were to release it to the community pre-signed, it would be exploited (installing viruses and whatnot). On the other hand, if we released source, it would allow others to get an inside look at it and possibly find an exploit (security by obscurity, I guess). What I worry about it that if someone uses your control for ill, it will reflect badly on all. I suppose it's not something that can be controlled in the long run. I guess that's what the security certificate is for -- people trust the certificate not the implementation. Just some thoughts...

#6 @Adrian: Ah, understood :)

@Thomas: I am very interested in seeing your version of this, especially for the reason of having the source in my control.

Either way, I think this is a very interesting development, so to speak :)

#7 @Clark: Never rely on security by obscurity. Just releasing it unsigned, or even maybe becoming a cert vendor yourself so people can by certs from you would be a better idea. Opening the source doesn't always lead to hackers determining the best way to attack it. If a hacker seriously wants to attack your control, they will... Combat it with checksums and certs.

- Brett

#8 We do have additional security in our activeX control.. the idea here is not to give a possible hacker a roadmap of how we are doing the security, thus not making it easier for them to develop an exploit for it. Releasing the source may not always lead to a hacker attacking it, but it would certainly make it easier for them if they decided to do so.

#9 I agree with Joe and Clark on this a lot, and have been thinking about it initially when setting forth on doing this project. Do you give away "too much" when releasing the sources vs. doing as osakit and only releasing through a pre-signed binary.

The pre-signing of ActiveX controls is a total joke imho, as it doesnt protect you against anything. Its only a stamp of "who made this binary" (and in this setup only the activex - not the code thats installed on the customers machine), and has nothing to do with security.

So the ActiveX control I have includes additional security features, and (given I'm not talked out of releasing this) includes a set of standard mechanisms to check and cross check server validity, code to install etc. This includes SSL connections, CRC32 and similar approaches trying to secure every step of the process. But it doesnt take more than an unsecured server where the game installer resides to break the chain, but that security hole will also exist for regular downloadable exe files.

I will not (and cannot) claim the mechanisms to be 100% secure - anyone doing that would be a total fool. But I somewhat believe in that open source is more secure than closed source. And I would rather have people run something that is secured in basic ways than home cook something that is just "protected" using ActiveX signing. Plus with source access you can roll your own mechanisms on top, as it will be your name in the ActiveX sign and not mine.

I might be wrong, and I'm open for discussions. GG hasnt responded yet, and I'll definitely wait to do anything before getting some feedback (from them or others).

Oh - and the primary purpose of the project was not to make a code pack, but to use it myself for my own projects. But I think its a great little thing that will enable a lot of indies to sell more games, and thus I think it should be released for others too. And I will for sure in my own projects add security on top - especially certs and hardened backend servers

#10 @Thomas -

I agree that releasing source makes a lot more sesnse than the signed binary. In fact, it's the signed binary that really scares me, since the signer has given up control over what gets installed, so the signing is mis-leading. It's an exploit waiting to happen.

Another option that you haven't mentioned is to offer your control as a service rather than for sale. The advantage here is that you can verify everything that the control installs (i.e., make sure it isn't a trojan etc), you can insure that it is your site that needs to be hacked in order to exploit the control and put all the necessary safeguards there. It also ends up being an advantage to the licensor since there is only one certificate to trust. When someone plays the ActiveX version of ThinkTanks they have to trust a certificate to do so (thus we lose some people). But when people play a flash game that doesn't happen because they have trusted flash long ago. If your control were widespread enough, it would start to be more like the flash case.

#11 Yeah - a good point Clark. Hadnt thought about the service offering at all - gives some headaches with bandwidth costs though, but that can be worked out.

By the end of the day I dont see the big security risks in using the AX vs downloading the exe file and running it manually - IF the security mechanisms are in place and working. Its both insecure and you need to trust the operator of the file-/webserver

#12 Thomas,

is your activeX control ready for sale yet, I am very interested in your product.

#13 Security through obscurity is not security ;)

Opening the source to your licensees at least lets your licensees evaluate your security and suggest improvements.

Open source != less secure ;)

As a matter of fact, opened source is usually more secure than closed, because only the hackers know the vulnerabilities of a closed system, the good guys don;t have time to reverse engineer the system. Which leads to inherently LESS secure systems. Peer review is the best way to improve security of any system.

Sorry, security is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, that mindset of closing the source for security reasons is fundamentally flawed.

:)

I return you to the active x conversation :)

#14 @Sean - still awaiting feedback from GG on this

But it should be quite ready with some documentation and packaging

#15 Very eager to use it/get it...
let me know when or if you need a beta man.

#16 Interested academically myself :)

#17 @thomas - has GG given you the appropriate feedback???
Maybe I could beta for you, be your first customer..

#18 Hehe - doesnt work that fast in a time of T2D and other more pressing issues @ GG. But Josh will look at it soon I've heard.

If not, then I'll consider running some "beta customers" on this. Would be nice to get some feedback on improvements and what kind of documentation is needed, etc.

#19 @thomas - that would be wonderful, If you need a beta customer for feedback, please dont hesitate to let me know.

#20 @thomas - any news as of yet?