3 ms·
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 pr
by 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 agoI 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.