4 ms·
I think he is referring to a specific issue: He wants a security model that allows "sandboxing" partially-trusted code so that it cannot take over the whole pag
by olavk 16y ago
I think he is referring to a specific issue: He wants a security model that allows "sandboxing" partially-trusted code so that it cannot take over the whole page. Today, if you execute a piece of JavaScript you have to trust it fully. This is an issue with e.g, ads. If an ad includes JavaScript, it can steal your users passwords.
He mentions Caja (http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/ http://code.google.com/p/google-caja/) which is an attempt to provide such a security model.
I guess this is a serious issue for the big ad-driven sites like Yahoo and Google. He is frustrated that the other parties involved in standardization (primarily browser vendors) does not prioritize this issue. I do agree that it is disingenuous to state that security was ignored.
- pornel 16y agoNot having his pet feature in the way he likes is not same as ignoring security (and he repeats few times that HTML5 prioritised other stuff over security, keeps making things worse, etc. which is not true). <iframe seamless sandbox="allow-scripts"> allows embedding of untrusted scripts. JS won't be able to escape the frame, but will be able to display result within the frame or send you result via postMessage().
- wvenable 16y agoUsing an <iframe> this way is like securing your house by nailing your door shut. Caja is more like just adding a lock to the door.