3 ms·
There are known PoCs for Meltdown using JS, which is what made this so scary. Heartbleed was far worse in comparison since it was remotely exploitable. But the
by captn3m0 9y ago
There are known PoCs for Meltdown using JS, which is what made this so scary. Heartbleed was far worse in comparison since it was remotely exploitable. But the JS vectors for Meltdown make it scary.
- jnordwick 9y agoWhere? We've been told it is possible, but I have yet to see a JavaScript exploit that wasn't basically a canned demo.
- unclepresent 9y agoI doubt it is possible to be done on JavaScript. Timing cache access is a challenging task for such high level language. The key to the attack is to figure out latency of memory access. A JavaScript app that is dealing with 100 layers of intermediate code before it actually gets to the physical memory could not see a difference between reading from actual memory or from cache. It is too slow to notice any change. Should be a pure assembler code to reliably estimate the effect of caching.
- jnordwick 9y agoIf you are already running untrusted binaries, there are bigger issues. Without a JS exploit, I'm not sure this is a big problem. And we haven't seen a real world binary version either. The versions I've seen all take running starts so to speak.