[Question] is .NET as bad as everyone says?

[joll69]

that's my question...is .NET framework 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 as vulnerable and open to exploit as so many ppl say? i dont recall ever seeing an advisory from m$ or any security firm saying they've found a vulnerability...

can someone perhaps post some links to show it is?

thanx in advance..

[Shark007]

is .NET framework 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 as vulnerable and open to exploit as so many ppl say?

ummmm, just who are these 'as so many ppl say?'

I havent heard or read this anywhere.

Could you quote a reputable source other than your neighbors brother?

shark

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

The main reason people don't like it is: again another component to install, while not many applications need it (however that's changing).

[CBC]

I just wish that there was more backwards compatability with apps that use it, as half of tem that I need only can use 1.1, while others (such as Nlite) can ony use 2.0...

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

I just wish that there was more backwards compatability with apps that use it, as half of tem that I need only can use 1.1, while others (such as Nlite) can ony use 2.0...

That's a decision of the developer

EDIT: and since when do .net 1.1 apps not work with 2.0???

[XPero]

1.1 apps works fine with 2.0. No need to have 1.1 + 2.0

[bujo696]

@XPero if I install Windows with .Net Framework 2, why is asking WU for 1.1?

[XPero]

@XPero if I install Windows with .Net Framework 2, why is asking WU for 1.1?

That's a good question I cannot fully answer. My guess is that 2.0 hasnt 100% backward compatibility, but I would say it has 95%. Maybe other member can answer that better than me. The thing is that I've never had any problems with "older" .NET apps and I'm using only 2.0 final.

[Sonic]

In fact if you install windows & apps for many pcs you must install both versions of .net to keep compatibilty ...

If it's just for you, you can try to install just .net 2 ...

.net api doesn't touch the security of windows ...

[atomizer]

.NET is not backward compatible. some apps will require 1.* while some require 2.0.

[amenx]

I wanted to install one small app, about 1mb. It said .NET Framework 2.0 was needed. DL'd .NET 2 (around 25mb) and installed it. It unpacked some 200mb + into my XP installation and I think over a meg of registry entries.

I always try to keep my XP 'lean and mean' and shy away from any bloatware programs, so naturally, was uncomfortable with the addition of .NET to my system. Anyone know if it has any impact on performance in any way, even miniscule? It probably doesnt, still dont like the idea of hundreds of extra MB's on my system just for the sake of one or two small programs that need it.

[Aegis]

.NET 2.0 is the only thing you need. Some programs might have a file like *.exe.config, and if it doesn't, then make one with the main executable replacing the asterick. Then paste it the following content:

<?xml version ="1.0"?>
<configuration>
<startup>
<supportedRuntime version="v2.0.50727" /> 
</startup>
</configuration>

@amenx

It is possible to find only the libraries that the program in question needs, then placing those files and the core .NET files such as mscoree.dll and mscorlib.dll (not full list) into the same directory as the program. I did that with MS Graphing Calculator and the libraries and required DLL's only took up an extra 10MB, much better than the 200MB or so of unneeded libraries.

[atomizer]

@amenx

can't agree more. i hate the bLOAt of .NET, all the files/reg entries and even a new user account and yet another service. at least nuhi, one of the nLite dev's, provides the runtimes so you don't have to install all the crap. i wonder if the runtimes could be made to work with other apps as well???

Edited January 9, 2006 by atomizer

[Aegis]

@Atomizer

I think by saying runtimes, you mean libraries? Because that is exactly what I was previously saying. By including them with the program, there is no need for any registry stuff, nor the rest of the bloat.

[atomizer]

libraries, yes