3 ms·
> JS is a security risk IMO. A network connection is a security risk. The question is whether the benefits outweighs the risk added by enabling it. For me th
by johannes1234321 4y ago
> JS is a security risk IMO.
A network connection is a security risk.
The question is whether the benefits outweighs the risk added by enabling it.
For me the benefit of disabling JS is more in privacy and disabling annoying user experience. JavaScriot runtimes are quite well audited meanwhile.
- zasdffaa 4y agoAnd a turing complete language delivered from a third party over said network connection to be executed locally will exponentially increases that risk, no? > JavaScriot runtimes are quite well audited meanwhile. Given (for example) the leftpad trainwreck, is that really true?
- johannes1234321 4y ago> > JavaScriot runtimes are quite well audited meanwhile. > Given (for example) the leftpad trainwreck, is that really true? That was that some (quite pointless) code was not available anymore as easily. Not a security issue.
- zasdffaa 4y agoThat's entirely irrelevant. It was available, got used, and things massively fell over when it was pulled. You've given no case to show things have changed - can you actually give any evidence that 'JavaScriot runtimes are quite well audited'.
- johannes1234321 4y agoCorrect, leftpad ia completely irrelevant for the discussion.