3 ms·
What do you mean "video file that I'm perfectly willing to play in my browser". Isn't it safe to assume that no video file can escape the browser decoding sandb
by Gehinnn 4mo ago
What do you mean "video file that I'm perfectly willing to play in my browser". Isn't it safe to assume that no video file can escape the browser decoding sandbox?
- thaumasiotes 4mo ago> Isn't it safe to assume that no video file can escape the browser decoding sandbox? Why would that be safe to assume? If that were a reasonable assumption, you could just as well assume that it's safe to run ffmpeg.
- ttoinou 4mo agoThe parent does argues it is safer to sandbox ffmpeg yes
- Denvercoder9 4mo agoI'm not up-to-speed with the current state of sandboxing in browsers, but in principle it's (on modern operating systems) not especially hard for them to sandbox the decoding into a separate process with basically no privileges beyond rendering a video stream. It's a bit trickier if we're only considering demuxing and delegating decoding to the hardware, but that's a much smaller attack surface. A manually run ffmpeg on the command line does nothing to restrict its privileges, and its security model has very little interest in doing so, while browsers very much have.
- lostglass 4mo agoYeah, then you need to stream content in real time between multiple processes. And not screw up the licensing. And get hardware acceleration working...
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- kjs3 4mo agoIsn't it safe to assume that no video file can escape the browser decoding sandbox? It's 'safe to assume' it's not. It's emphatically not safe to assume any mitigation is perfect.
- preg_match 4mo agoNo, browsers have had many sandbox escape exploits related to decoding.