3 ms·
> Their concerns are also valid: "we don't want to expose users to security-sensitive code without significant benefit for the users". It's possible to sandbox
by orra 3y ago
> Their concerns are also valid: "we don't want to expose users to security-sensitive code without significant benefit for the users".
It's possible to sandbox these things. Firefox sandboxes some native libs, by compiling to WebAssembly, then back to C.
- arp242 3y agoI don't know if Chrome has a feature like that, but if it does it doesn't seem to have been used for the libjxl integration. Lots of things are possible in principle; it's also possible to write rs-libjxl which would significantly reduce the problem. But there's a difference between "what's possible" and "what the reality is today", and in the context of what the situation is today it seems to me the concerns are valid.