2 ms·

>it might actually be easier to implement a VM that safely runs arbitrary code, than it would be to convince publishers to move to a user-friendly platform that

>it might actually be easier to implement a VM that safely runs arbitrary code, than it would be to convince publishers to move to a user-friendly platform that only distributed documents. Would the VM that safely runs arbitrary code render existing web pages or would it be necessary to persuade publishers to adopt it?

danShumway 7y ago
The current strategy being pursued by Apple and Mozilla is -- yes. They're hoping to make Javascript into that VM without breaking the majority of web pages. It is yet to be seen whether that's feasible. Apple and Mozilla are certainly making a lot of progress, but Javascript is very old, and was designed in an era where the attacks were much less sophisticated. The most promising progress (I think) is in building tracking protection that is undetectable. For example, you can put a permission prompt in front of someone's location and block off the API if the user clicked "no", but you could also just lie about their location, which means you'd still be compatible with most existing pages, and publishers wouldn't be able to strong-arm users into turning off the setting. This is how Firefox currently handles high-resolution timers. You can request them, they'll just lie to you sometimes. Again, it's yet to be seen whether that kind of stuff will work. The other hope is that WASM may be good enough on its own to encourage wide adoption -- being able to use (almost) any language to compile to the web is very, very attractive, so WASM might overcome Javascript's network effects (no pun intended) and replace it as the dominant language on the web. If that happens, WASM might be an opportunity to rethink web permissions. Might. If neither of those approaches work, then anything is fair game. At that point, we might as well try to make a document-only web, or migrate everyone to a new platform. I think that will be very difficult though.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

danShumway 7y ago

The current strategy being pursued by Apple and Mozilla is -- yes. They're hoping to make Javascript into that VM without breaking the majority of web pages. It is yet to be seen whether that's feasible. Apple and Mozilla are certainly making a lot of progress, but Javascript is very old, and was designed in an era where the attacks were much less sophisticated. The most promising progress (I think) is in building tracking protection that is undetectable. For example, you can put a permission prompt in front of someone's location and block off the API if the user clicked "no", but you could also just lie about their location, which means you'd still be compatible with most existing pages, and publishers wouldn't be able to strong-arm users into turning off the setting. This is how Firefox currently handles high-resolution timers. You can request them, they'll just lie to you sometimes. Again, it's yet to be seen whether that kind of stuff will work. The other hope is that WASM may be good enough on its own to encourage wide adoption -- being able to use (almost) any language to compile to the web is very, very attractive, so WASM might overcome Javascript's network effects (no pun intended) and replace it as the dominant language on the web. If that happens, WASM might be an opportunity to rethink web permissions. Might. If neither of those approaches work, then anything is fair game. At that point, we might as well try to make a document-only web, or migrate everyone to a new platform. I think that will be very difficult though.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]