4 ms·

Sure: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1224/product_id-15031/opec-1/Google-Chrome.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vend

Sure: https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1224/product_id-15031/opec-1/Google-Chrome.html https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-1224.... Also look at Google Project Zero writeups, and similar CVE details for Firefox and Safari. Some are related to JavaScript (notably, it's hard to exploit V8 if the browser isn't processing any JavaScript!). But the vast majority are memory corruption and sandbox escape issues. Disabling JavaScript insulates you from a nontrivial - but nontheless minority - subset of browser vulnerabilities.

dane-pgp 8y ago
Of the first 28 vulnerabilities listed on that page (representing the past 5 years of CVEs for Chrome), I count only 7 that don't mention V8, JavaScript, PDFs, plugins, or "unspecified vectors". If someone is choosing to disable JavaScript in their browser, I think it is reasonable to expect they are also disabling plugins for other formats like Flash and PDF. We might disagree about whether to include disabling plugins as part of disabling JavaScript, or how to count the "unspecified vectors" CVEs, but the clearest minority is this 25% of vulnerabilities that a JavaScript (and plugins) disabling user would fail to insulate themselves from.
userbinator 8y ago
But the vast majority are memory corruption and sandbox escape issues. ...which require JS to exploit. (What is a "sandbox escape" if there isn't code to... escape it?) I went through the 50 vulnerabilities on that page and looked at the nature of them and inspected any PoC code if any. This is the results: PDF,JS,JS,WebGL(JS),JS,CSS,JS,JS,extension,HTML(but PoC needs JS),JS,PDF,PDF,MIDI(JS),AppCache(JS),PDF,JS,UI,WebRTC(JS),JS,JS(speech recognition!?),JS,JS,JS,JS,JS,JS,JPEG(rendering uninitialised memory --- not exploitable without JS to read that data),JS(WebWorker),HTTP/SSL(!),SVG+JS,UI,JS,XML(!),SVG+JS,JS(audio),Fonts(actually Windows font renderer bug),UI,??(no details available),IndexedDB(JS),WebGL(JS),UI,JS(WebSockets),NaCl(extension),extension,PNG,WebGL(JS),?,JS,WebGL(JS) That's 32/50 confirmed to require JS to exploit, and only 3/50 stood out as being "visit a page with all plugins/JS/extensions disabled, and still get pwned", of which 1 is actually a Windows bug. Disabling JavaScript insulates you from a nontrivial - but nontheless minority - subset of browser vulnerabilities. Looks more like a majority to me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dane-pgp 8y ago

Of the first 28 vulnerabilities listed on that page (representing the past 5 years of CVEs for Chrome), I count only 7 that don't mention V8, JavaScript, PDFs, plugins, or "unspecified vectors". If someone is choosing to disable JavaScript in their browser, I think it is reasonable to expect they are also disabling plugins for other formats like Flash and PDF. We might disagree about whether to include disabling plugins as part of disabling JavaScript, or how to count the "unspecified vectors" CVEs, but the clearest minority is this 25% of vulnerabilities that a JavaScript (and plugins) disabling user would fail to insulate themselves from.

userbinator 8y ago

But the vast majority are memory corruption and sandbox escape issues. ...which require JS to exploit. (What is a "sandbox escape" if there isn't code to... escape it?) I went through the 50 vulnerabilities on that page and looked at the nature of them and inspected any PoC code if any. This is the results: PDF,JS,JS,WebGL(JS),JS,CSS,JS,JS,extension,HTML(but PoC needs JS),JS,PDF,PDF,MIDI(JS),AppCache(JS),PDF,JS,UI,WebRTC(JS),JS,JS(speech recognition!?),JS,JS,JS,JS,JS,JS,JPEG(rendering uninitialised memory --- not exploitable without JS to read that data),JS(WebWorker),HTTP/SSL(!),SVG+JS,UI,JS,XML(!),SVG+JS,JS(audio),Fonts(actually Windows font renderer bug),UI,??(no details available),IndexedDB(JS),WebGL(JS),UI,JS(WebSockets),NaCl(extension),extension,PNG,WebGL(JS),?,JS,WebGL(JS) That's 32/50 confirmed to require JS to exploit, and only 3/50 stood out as being "visit a page with all plugins/JS/extensions disabled, and still get pwned", of which 1 is actually a Windows bug. Disabling JavaScript insulates you from a nontrivial - but nontheless minority - subset of browser vulnerabilities. Looks more like a majority to me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]