5 ms·
But this is true of an ordinary Unix process too, via virtual memory. A Unix process can’t corrupt the kernel or other processes. But in practice there’s still
by ridiculous_fish 8y ago
But this is true of an ordinary Unix process too, via virtual memory. A Unix process can’t corrupt the kernel or other processes. But in practice there’s still a lot you can do with a buffer overflow vulnerability.
- littlestymaar 8y agoThe issue with Unix process is that a process has the same rights than the user who ran that process. The design goal of WASI is to provide a capability-based system[1], so an attacker exploiting a buffer overflow wouldn't be able to access things that the original program wasn't supposed to. [1]: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webassembly-system-interface/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/standardizing-wasi-a-webas...
- hawski 8y agoThen it's a bit bizarre to call it memory safe. I would say that "sandbox" is far more established term for what it is or does. Because if by using seccomp and/or user namespaces I would say that Linux/C is memory safe wouldn't it be an unhelpful statement? Can we say that Chrome or Qemu are implemented on memory safe platform?