3 ms·
I disagree with your disagreement. :) "oh but you can chain exploits" in this context is like if a php server takes POST data, passes it through an arbitrary b
by infogulch 6y ago
I disagree with your disagreement. :)
"oh but you can chain exploits" in this context is like if a php server takes POST data, passes it through an arbitrary but guaranteed to terminate "safe" function, and calls eval() on the result -- and then attributes potential vulnerabilities to the function. This seems silly, obviously the problem is the eval() at the end.
- emn13 6y agoAt the end of the day, if an attacker needs to chain exploits that's still a safer place to be that if they didn't need to do so. Additionally, how relevant is a link in an exploit chain when it's very likely the same overall effect could be had without using that link? Not very. And as you say, the examples given are really poor; they're barely exploits, that's more like a really unwise feature - it's hard to imagine situations like this arising in practice by accident without being more easily exploitable without even using WASM in the first place - I mean, if you're processing data in a some way and your interface with that processing code includes stuff like eval, that's just a disaster waiting to happen - as web exploits over the decades have demonstrated again, and again.