4 ms·

Explain specifically and technically what you think the problem is. You can't overrun buffers and overflow stacks in any language without it crashing. There is

Explain specifically and technically what you think the problem is. You can't overrun buffers and overflow stacks in any language without it crashing. There is also no expectation that data in one buffer in webasm would be separate from another buffer.

mort96 3y ago
You should stop arguing. He's correct in this critique, and you don't even disagree that he's correct. The problem is that it's a critique of how (he alleges) hype/VC people have over-sold WASM, not an actual problem with WASM.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  You should stop arguing, because the claim of insecurity is not being backed up by anything. Show me an exploit, show me with detailed and technical information, show some sort of evidence. Both of you are just repeating your claim more forcefully, never adding anything that backs up your claims. Compiling C to webasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of webasm? No one has those expectations except people with a bizarre vendetta against a simple and benign technology like webasm.
  - mort96 3y ago
    pjmlp's claim is: there are people out there who over-hype WASM, who claim that simply compiling a C program to WASM will automatically make it secure. pjmlp is claiming that these over-hyped claims are wrong (in their words: "programs inside the sandbox can still be tricked into internal memory corruption"). You agree that those over-hyped claims are wrong (in your own words: "compiling C to webasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of webasm"). I agree that those over-hyped claims are wrong. If one wants to argue against pjmlp (as you and I both do), there are two ways to go: 1) you can say that nobody is making those claims, or 2) you can say that if people are making those claims, the problem is with those people, not WASM. I choose #2, because it seems plausible to me that VC-backed startup types over-hype WASM. If I was more familiar with the discourse around WASM, I might try to argue #1 if I thought I could demonstrate that over-hyping WASM doesn't really happen. Maybe you could go the burden of proof route, that it's their responsibility to prove that people are over-hyping WASM and take the discussion from there. But you ... don't seem to be engaging with the argument. You agree that "compiling C to wasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of wasm", yet you say that "the claim of insecurity is not being backed up by anything" when the claim of insecurity is that compiling C to wasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of wasm. That's literally what was meant by "internal memory corruption" in pjmlp's very first comment which mentioned the security angle. Again, they're wrong to mention this as a flaw of WASM because making C code resistant against "internal memory corruption" was never a goal of WASM, but that doesn't mean that their "claim of insecurity" is wrong. To show an example of the kind of exploit pjmlp is talking about, just take any C program with some kind of exploitable buffer overflow, run it in wasmtime or wasmer or whatever, and exploit the buffer overflow. Maybe the buffer overflow lets an attacker write 101 bytes to a 100 byte buffer and therefore flip an "isAdministrator" flag from 0 to 1. You, I and pjmlp all agree that such security issues can exist; WASM doesn't magically protect C code from memory corruption. And that is not a flaw in WASM, which is what your argument should be focusing on.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      You both need to stop conflating bugs in a C program that become bugs in webasm with insecurity. Insecurity would be escaping the VM it runs in. In a native compiled binary you have infinite permissions and can make system calls. You can't do that in a webasm VM. Webasm is not insecure because a C program that crashes also crashes in webasm. You still haven't shown any evidence of escaping the VM or actual insecurity.
      - mort96 3y ago
        Nobody is conflating bugs in a C program with bugs in WASM. Nobody is saying that there are sandbox escaping bugs. I give up.
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        If you can't escape the VM, then where is the insecurity? If someone is dumping privileged data into a VM that's insecure no matter what, why would you blame webasm?
        mort96 3y ago
        Web pages can have insecure JavaScript even if the sandbox isn't escaped. Sandbox escape isn't the only possible vulnerability in sandboxed applications. This is basic stuff that I know you already agree with so I don't understand why you keep pressing it. "Why would you blame WASM" is the right question. As I have said in LITERALLY every single comment so far, blaming WASM instead of the alleged hype people is where pjmlp is wrong. He's not wrong in the assertion that insecure programs may remain insecure when run in the WASM sandbox. But you refuse to listen. This conversation is like talking to a much less polite ChatGPT.
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        You're arguing against claims no one is making. No one thinks webasm magically fixes bugs. I never said that and no one else did either.

mort96 3y ago

You should stop arguing. He's correct in this critique, and you don't even disagree that he's correct. The problem is that it's a critique of how (he alleges) hype/VC people have over-sold WASM, not an actual problem with WASM.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
You should stop arguing, because the claim of insecurity is not being backed up by anything. Show me an exploit, show me with detailed and technical information, show some sort of evidence. Both of you are just repeating your claim more forcefully, never adding anything that backs up your claims. Compiling C to webasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of webasm? No one has those expectations except people with a bizarre vendetta against a simple and benign technology like webasm.
- mort96 3y ago
  pjmlp's claim is: there are people out there who over-hype WASM, who claim that simply compiling a C program to WASM will automatically make it secure. pjmlp is claiming that these over-hyped claims are wrong (in their words: "programs inside the sandbox can still be tricked into internal memory corruption"). You agree that those over-hyped claims are wrong (in your own words: "compiling C to webasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of webasm"). I agree that those over-hyped claims are wrong. If one wants to argue against pjmlp (as you and I both do), there are two ways to go: 1) you can say that nobody is making those claims, or 2) you can say that if people are making those claims, the problem is with those people, not WASM. I choose #2, because it seems plausible to me that VC-backed startup types over-hype WASM. If I was more familiar with the discourse around WASM, I might try to argue #1 if I thought I could demonstrate that over-hyping WASM doesn't really happen. Maybe you could go the burden of proof route, that it's their responsibility to prove that people are over-hyping WASM and take the discussion from there. But you ... don't seem to be engaging with the argument. You agree that "compiling C to wasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of wasm", yet you say that "the claim of insecurity is not being backed up by anything" when the claim of insecurity is that compiling C to wasm doesn't fix C bugs within the local memory space of wasm. That's literally what was meant by "internal memory corruption" in pjmlp's very first comment which mentioned the security angle. Again, they're wrong to mention this as a flaw of WASM because making C code resistant against "internal memory corruption" was never a goal of WASM, but that doesn't mean that their "claim of insecurity" is wrong. To show an example of the kind of exploit pjmlp is talking about, just take any C program with some kind of exploitable buffer overflow, run it in wasmtime or wasmer or whatever, and exploit the buffer overflow. Maybe the buffer overflow lets an attacker write 101 bytes to a 100 byte buffer and therefore flip an "isAdministrator" flag from 0 to 1. You, I and pjmlp all agree that such security issues can exist; WASM doesn't magically protect C code from memory corruption. And that is not a flaw in WASM, which is what your argument should be focusing on.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    You both need to stop conflating bugs in a C program that become bugs in webasm with insecurity. Insecurity would be escaping the VM it runs in. In a native compiled binary you have infinite permissions and can make system calls. You can't do that in a webasm VM. Webasm is not insecure because a C program that crashes also crashes in webasm. You still haven't shown any evidence of escaping the VM or actual insecurity.
    - mort96 3y ago
      Nobody is conflating bugs in a C program with bugs in WASM. Nobody is saying that there are sandbox escaping bugs. I give up.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        If you can't escape the VM, then where is the insecurity? If someone is dumping privileged data into a VM that's insecure no matter what, why would you blame webasm?
        mort96 3y ago
        Web pages can have insecure JavaScript even if the sandbox isn't escaped. Sandbox escape isn't the only possible vulnerability in sandboxed applications. This is basic stuff that I know you already agree with so I don't understand why you keep pressing it. "Why would you blame WASM" is the right question. As I have said in LITERALLY every single comment so far, blaming WASM instead of the alleged hype people is where pjmlp is wrong. He's not wrong in the assertion that insecure programs may remain insecure when run in the WASM sandbox. But you refuse to listen. This conversation is like talking to a much less polite ChatGPT.
        CyberDildonics 3y ago
        You're arguing against claims no one is making. No one thinks webasm magically fixes bugs. I never said that and no one else did either.