4 ms·

I'm a fan of WebGL and I really hope it does gain traction, but I think people are being really irresponsible for ignoring what MS is saying (perhaps a bit of a

by JonoW 15y ago

I'm a fan of WebGL and I really hope it does gain traction, but I think people are being really irresponsible for ignoring what MS is saying (perhaps a bit of anti-MS mentality?). There ARE avenues for attacks through WebGL (e.g. http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/06/16/webgl-graphics-memory-stealing-issue/ http://blog.mozilla.com/security/2011/06/16/webgl-graphics-m...), you'd be crazy to ignore them. Also, if Silverlight is susceptible to the same vulnerabilities, then that makes MS hypocritical, not wrong! And comparisons with Java and Flash getting hardware shaders is beside the point - MS doesn't have control over which features those products choose to include or not, they only have control over IE and Silverlight. I hope a reasonable scenario develops where IE does get WebGL, perhaps a whitelist of drivers that adhere to higher degrees of security for use with WebGL.

cgranade 15y ago
It would be crazy to ignore MS on this point, yes. It would also be crazy, though, to take them at face value. While there are avenues for attacks via WebGL, I think it's clear that MS is being at least somewhat disingenous about the implications one can draw from the existence of such attacks. I am not enough of an expert to tell lies and facts apart in MS's statements, and so I cannot derive any real value from what they say. I am hence forced to derive my opinions on the matter from other, more trustworthy sources, such as the Mozilla blog that you linked to.
- extension 15y ago
  Mozilla and Google have their own agendas and biases around WebGL. If you want an independent opinion, look to security experts and low level graphics programmers who don't have a big stake in the browser vs native platform controversy.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    You're going to find that security researchers are going to agree with Microsoft's take on this. People have been finding actual flaws in this stuff. Web browsers are the hardest piece of software we have to secure in 2011. Coupling them directly to video drivers is disquieting.
    - JoachimSchipper 15y ago
      That is definitely the "secure" answer. Allow me to make a prediction, though: WebGL will happen. Browsers have always largely ignored security concerns ("what do you mean, twenty-year old crufty font rendering code perhaps shouldn't be directly exposed to the internet?"), and they are not going to stop now.
    - cgranade 15y ago
      There's a big difference between saying that something is presently insecure and that it is by nature not securable. I understand and agree that WebGL is not presently secure at all, but Microsoft is making a set of claims far beyond this: that not only is WebGL insecure, it can never be made secure, and moreover, that Silverlight is somehow immune to the problems facing WebGL. That additional set of claims is why I say that MS is being disingenuous, if not outright lying. More than a good-intentioned warning about insecure software (which would be exceedingly ironic, given the source), MS's statement comes off as opportunism.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        I see WebGL people saying essentially the same thing: that there is a reasonable degree of security that can only be assured by obtaining cooperation from driver vendors; that, in other words, the security of WebGL is not entirely under their control.
  - cgranade 15y ago
    I don't want an independent opinion so much as I want one from a party that isn't being disingenuous.
nkassis 15y ago
No one is ignoring the issues. The author was never saying their wasn't security issues. He even states some of the steps that the Chrome team and the Firefox team (who are working together on this) are taking to make WebGL more secure. The point is, Microsoft will have to do that exact same things to secure 3D in Silverlight 5. Why not use that work for WebGL in IE10? The author also point it out that microsoft is in one of the best position to help secure WebGL by putting pressure on Driver vendors and using their knowldege of the OS. In fact Gregg in the post talks about the reset ability in windows which lets browser reset GPU when they see browser operation blocking them for too long. This is a feature that he claims is only well supported on Windows. And that Microsoft could work with GPU vendors to make that even better on Windows.
magicalist 15y ago
while that bug was only possible because of WebGL, it really is a bug in Firefox (the blog post submission mentions this). This is evident since this attack is not possible in Chrome or Firefox 5 (released today).

by JonoW 15y ago

cgranade 15y ago

It would be crazy to ignore MS on this point, yes. It would also be crazy, though, to take them at face value. While there are avenues for attacks via WebGL, I think it's clear that MS is being at least somewhat disingenous about the implications one can draw from the existence of such attacks. I am not enough of an expert to tell lies and facts apart in MS's statements, and so I cannot derive any real value from what they say. I am hence forced to derive my opinions on the matter from other, more trustworthy sources, such as the Mozilla blog that you linked to.

extension 15y ago
Mozilla and Google have their own agendas and biases around WebGL. If you want an independent opinion, look to security experts and low level graphics programmers who don't have a big stake in the browser vs native platform controversy.
- tptacek 15y ago
  You're going to find that security researchers are going to agree with Microsoft's take on this. People have been finding actual flaws in this stuff. Web browsers are the hardest piece of software we have to secure in 2011. Coupling them directly to video drivers is disquieting.
  - JoachimSchipper 15y ago
    That is definitely the "secure" answer. Allow me to make a prediction, though: WebGL will happen. Browsers have always largely ignored security concerns ("what do you mean, twenty-year old crufty font rendering code perhaps shouldn't be directly exposed to the internet?"), and they are not going to stop now.
  - cgranade 15y ago
    There's a big difference between saying that something is presently insecure and that it is by nature not securable. I understand and agree that WebGL is not presently secure at all, but Microsoft is making a set of claims far beyond this: that not only is WebGL insecure, it can never be made secure, and moreover, that Silverlight is somehow immune to the problems facing WebGL. That additional set of claims is why I say that MS is being disingenuous, if not outright lying. More than a good-intentioned warning about insecure software (which would be exceedingly ironic, given the source), MS's statement comes off as opportunism.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I see WebGL people saying essentially the same thing: that there is a reasonable degree of security that can only be assured by obtaining cooperation from driver vendors; that, in other words, the security of WebGL is not entirely under their control.
- cgranade 15y ago
  I don't want an independent opinion so much as I want one from a party that isn't being disingenuous.

nkassis 15y ago

No one is ignoring the issues. The author was never saying their wasn't security issues. He even states some of the steps that the Chrome team and the Firefox team (who are working together on this) are taking to make WebGL more secure. The point is, Microsoft will have to do that exact same things to secure 3D in Silverlight 5. Why not use that work for WebGL in IE10? The author also point it out that microsoft is in one of the best position to help secure WebGL by putting pressure on Driver vendors and using their knowldege of the OS. In fact Gregg in the post talks about the reset ability in windows which lets browser reset GPU when they see browser operation blocking them for too long. This is a feature that he claims is only well supported on Windows. And that Microsoft could work with GPU vendors to make that even better on Windows.

magicalist 15y ago

while that bug was only possible because of WebGL, it really is a bug in Firefox (the blog post submission mentions this). This is evident since this attack is not possible in Chrome or Firefox 5 (released today).