7 ms·

If large amounts of code written in memory unsafe languages is such a concern then Mozilla should immediately stop adding large numbers of highly complex new fe

If large amounts of code written in memory unsafe languages is such a concern then Mozilla should immediately stop adding large numbers of highly complex new features implemented in unsafe code to Firefox every year, mostly to do things that have absolutely nothing to do with displaying web pages but are enabled by default for political reasons. Just like switching to PDF.js was a decision taken to try and reduce the security attack surface, the decisions to add webgl, webrtc, webfonts, webm, websockets, new css features and so on were all decisions taken in the full knowledge that adding those things would vastly increase the attack surface and inevitably lead to security exploits. These new web features are responsible for a slew of new vulnerabilities and new classes of information leaks.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ronjouch 11y ago
> (a) If large amounts of code written in memory unsafe languages is such a concern then Mozilla should immediately stop adding large numbers of highly complex new features implemented in unsafe code to Firefox every year, > (b) ... mostly to do things that have absolutely nothing to do with displaying web pages but are enabled by default for political reasons. (a) Mozilla is working on adding/replacing parts of Firefox with a language emphasizing security (among other things). First Rust push in Firefox landed a Rust mp4 parser [1], on 2015-06-17. Others will come; in the meantime, the world keeps turning, and users / web. developers expect these new web features, which Moz devs implement with the infrastructure they have and know. They're not going to cross their hands and declare a moratorium until Rust (or other security-mitigating features/changes) are fully integrated. (b) Not sure what you mean by political reasons and maybe you want to stay stuck in 1992, but I don't, and like many users I do want "webgl, webrtc, webfonts, webm, websockets, new css features and so on" . EDIT I'd have added "You can install links if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents", which you would have answered with "But I can't, every website require these features now", to which I'd have answered "a. Yeah, not everyone (that's an understatement) does progressive enhancement, but ultimately b. The times they are a-changing" [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1175322 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1175322
- baghira 11y ago
  It doesn't help your position the fact that you are unable to express it without belittling anybody who disagrees with you using stuff like "stay stuck in 1992" ("If you don't like America you should go to Russia!"). Also, the links/lynx jokes have really gotten tired, plenty of people browse the web with ublock, no(t)script, webgl and webrtc disabled and so on. The pretense that anybody who tries to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not it a luddist is frankly irritating. And the whole language debate is completely off point, we have plenty of safe(r) languages for writing stuff, the misguided idea is that the only way to do so is to use javascript and stick the resulting program inside the browser.
  - ronjouch 11y ago
    > It doesn't help your position the fact that you are unable to express it without belittling anybody who disagrees with you using stuff like "stay stuck in 1992" ("If you don't like America you should go to Russia!"). True, that was useless, could have just said "I and many users do want these features" . Thanks, and sorry anon. > the links/lynx jokes have really gotten tired, plenty of people browse the web with ublock, no(t)script, webgl and webrtc disabled and so on. The pretense that anybody who tries to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not it a luddist is frankly irritating. That wasn't a links joke, I could have phrased it with your own words "You can install ublock, no(t)script, and disable webgl/webrtc if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents" , and "But I can't, every website require these features now" would still be an answer. My conclusion isn't that "anyone trying to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not is a luddist" --and I do use some of these extensions too--, it's that the barebones web experience anon wants is broken now (and probably forever), due to: a. Sadly, non-respect of progressive enhancement in cases where it's possible (documents). b. The fact that _some_ parts of the web are increasingly not documents, but whole apps whose progressive-enhancement baseline (running without all the bells and whistles) would do nothing because they depend on these features. > And the whole language debate is completely off point, we have plenty of safe(r) languages for writing stuff, the misguided idea is that the only way to do so is to use javascript and stick the resulting program inside the browser. Yes. Development practices, testing, fuzzing, and safe(r) languages, like Rust.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ronjouch 11y ago

> (a) If large amounts of code written in memory unsafe languages is such a concern then Mozilla should immediately stop adding large numbers of highly complex new features implemented in unsafe code to Firefox every year, > (b) ... mostly to do things that have absolutely nothing to do with displaying web pages but are enabled by default for political reasons. (a) Mozilla is working on adding/replacing parts of Firefox with a language emphasizing security (among other things). First Rust push in Firefox landed a Rust mp4 parser [1], on 2015-06-17. Others will come; in the meantime, the world keeps turning, and users / web. developers expect these new web features, which Moz devs implement with the infrastructure they have and know. They're not going to cross their hands and declare a moratorium until Rust (or other security-mitigating features/changes) are fully integrated. (b) Not sure what you mean by political reasons and maybe you want to stay stuck in 1992, but I don't, and like many users I do want "webgl, webrtc, webfonts, webm, websockets, new css features and so on" . EDIT I'd have added "You can install links if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents", which you would have answered with "But I can't, every website require these features now", to which I'd have answered "a. Yeah, not everyone (that's an understatement) does progressive enhancement, but ultimately b. The times they are a-changing" [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1175322 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1175322

baghira 11y ago
It doesn't help your position the fact that you are unable to express it without belittling anybody who disagrees with you using stuff like "stay stuck in 1992" ("If you don't like America you should go to Russia!"). Also, the links/lynx jokes have really gotten tired, plenty of people browse the web with ublock, no(t)script, webgl and webrtc disabled and so on. The pretense that anybody who tries to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not it a luddist is frankly irritating. And the whole language debate is completely off point, we have plenty of safe(r) languages for writing stuff, the misguided idea is that the only way to do so is to use javascript and stick the resulting program inside the browser.
- ronjouch 11y ago
  > It doesn't help your position the fact that you are unable to express it without belittling anybody who disagrees with you using stuff like "stay stuck in 1992" ("If you don't like America you should go to Russia!"). True, that was useless, could have just said "I and many users do want these features" . Thanks, and sorry anon. > the links/lynx jokes have really gotten tired, plenty of people browse the web with ublock, no(t)script, webgl and webrtc disabled and so on. The pretense that anybody who tries to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not it a luddist is frankly irritating. That wasn't a links joke, I could have phrased it with your own words "You can install ublock, no(t)script, and disable webgl/webrtc if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents" , and "But I can't, every website require these features now" would still be an answer. My conclusion isn't that "anyone trying to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not is a luddist" --and I do use some of these extensions too--, it's that the barebones web experience anon wants is broken now (and probably forever), due to: a. Sadly, non-respect of progressive enhancement in cases where it's possible (documents). b. The fact that _some_ parts of the web are increasingly not documents, but whole apps whose progressive-enhancement baseline (running without all the bells and whistles) would do nothing because they depend on these features. > And the whole language debate is completely off point, we have plenty of safe(r) languages for writing stuff, the misguided idea is that the only way to do so is to use javascript and stick the resulting program inside the browser. Yes. Development practices, testing, fuzzing, and safe(r) languages, like Rust.