3 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoYou'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 agoFucking hell, please pay attention to the discussion you're in. pjmlp's claim is: marketing around WASM suggests that running C programs in WASM instead of natively magically makes those C programs safe.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoI doubt anyone is suggesting "magic" and obviously when people talk about 'safety' they mean preventing crashes and escaping the VM. What specific marketing are you talking about? Link what you're referring to.
- mort96 3y agoRead. My. Comments. I am not claiming that WASM has been misleadingly marketed. pjmlp is. Ask him to link to what he's referring to.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoAfter all this, now you're going to say you don't actually have any of these criticisms and you were just repeating someone else's claims? Ask him to link to what he's referring to. He posts this stuff in half the webasm threads I see. Like you he never has anything to back it up and you both get very upset at people asking.
- mort96 3y agoYES! I DISAGREE WITH PJMLK! ALL MY RESPONSES TO PJMLK HAVE BEEN ME DISAGREEING WITH HIM! ALL MY RESPONSES TO YOU HAVE BEEN ABOUT HOW YOU CAN ARGUE AGAINST HIM BETTER BY UNDERSTAND WHICH WRONG CLAIMS HE ACTUALLY MADE, SO THAT YOU'RE NOT ARGUING AGAINST STRAW MEN! PAY ATTENTION! This is my last response in this thread. You've displayed a profound inability to think. I can't be part of this anymore.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoMaybe you should reply to him then instead of getting so upset.
- mort96 3y agoI already did reply to him, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38613663 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38613663.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoI don't really understand your expectations here. You seem to disagree with someone else and they won't reply to you to give you evidence of their claims. What do you hope to accomplish by replying to me?
- mort96 3y agoI replied to pjmlp because I thought (and still think) he was wrong in his characterization that WASM is a failure because it doesn't magically make insecure C programs secure. I replied to you because I thought (and still think) you were wrong and/or misunderstanding what pjmlp was saying. I can disagree with two people at the same time. I don't see the issue.