3 ms·
If wasm had a standard runtime everyone used, sure. It doesn't, runtimes are significantly fragmented. Therefore 'wasm is sandboxed' is not true, and in many ca
by devwastaken 7y ago
If wasm had a standard runtime everyone used, sure. It doesn't, runtimes are significantly fragmented. Therefore 'wasm is sandboxed' is not true, and in many cases those sandboxes are not at all being audited. It is very dangerous to make broad and demonstrably untrue statements about software security. Wasm is not a sandbox, wasm is a set of instructions. Your quality of sandbox, if at all, is up to what runtime you use. No amount of word play will change that.
- Dylan16807 7y agoThe defined semantics for those instructions include sandboxing. If there is no sandbox, it's not WASM. It wouldn't be implementing the instructions as described in the spec. You can argue that a sandbox might be low quality. That's fine. But it doesn't make it non-sandboxed.
- devwastaken 7y ago"if there is no sandbox then it's not wasm". You don't get to decide how an instruction set is used, and a 'low quality sandbox' is not a sandbox. You've denied facts and continue to make both inexperienced and naieve claims that are dangerous. Not entertaining it further.
- Dylan16807 7y agoIf someone guesses what all the instructions are supposed to do and implements the wrong semantics, they didn't actually implement the same instruction set! When all your security issues are violations of the spec, then it is not the language in the spec that is insecure.