4 ms·

As far as I understand this has the exact same security model as Javascript, and it can do exactly as much as Javascript. Is there any security sense in which

• chriswarbo 10y ago
  I think you're right that being "high"/"low" level is basically irrelevant for theoretical security; only the primitive IO instructions matter, and if some combination of those instructions is a security risk, then it doesn't really matter how that combination comes about (via functional programming and monads, via OO service architectures, via actors, via bit-twiddling and gotos, etc.). On the other hand, I can imagine "low level" (i.e. low abstraction) programs having a harder time implementing their own security models; e.g. trying to segregate third-party code, etc. simply because it's harder to reason at a level so much removed from your application domain. Having security-conscious higher level languages compile into WA would alleviate this though.
  • iofj 10y ago
    It tends to be the opposite. Low level is far easier to secure. Far easier to make a VM guaranteed to be secure : you only have to prove a few instructions don't result in privilege escalation and you're done. What really matters is contact points between the inside and the outside of the security container, and how complex they are. The fewer and simpler, the better. But, large performance advantages can be had by violating these rules.