4 ms·

> 1. There isn’t a single universal standard for sandboxing across all the different platforms that are supported by Rust. Yeah, let's hold up the entire world

> 1. There isn’t a single universal standard for sandboxing across all the different platforms that are supported by Rust. Yeah, let's hold up the entire world of offensive cybersecurity capability while you work on that. Sure they will wait. > 2. Even if there were, if you’re compiling untrusted code then why would you trust the built output? You don't. You sandbox the hell out of it too.

hnlmorg 2mo ago
> Yeah, let's hold up the entire world of offensive cybersecurity capability while you work on that. Sure they will wait. Nice sarcasm but you’re not actually addressing a solution to the problem I raised. > You don't. You sandbox the hell out of it too. So you’re now saying it’s ok to have exploits compiled into your application as long as it’s sandboxed? I wonder how customers of your application feel about that? I’m certainly not going to be entering my bank details into your ecommerce platform (to give just one obvious example why your suggestion wouldn’t work).
- nathan_compton 2mo ago
  This response seems disingenuous. It was never implied it was ok to have exploits in the compiled software, only that the blast radius is smaller if the compiled code is also sandboxed.
  - hnlmorg 2mo ago
    Smaller maybe. But it’s still an unacceptable risk. I refer you back to my example of compiled code being used by customers. Arguing that compromised code is safer when sandboxed really misses the real problem: that you’re running compromised code in the first place. Hence my analogy of closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted. What we need is to ensure we have stronger safeguards in place to prevent bad code from reaching build pipelines. If it’s in the build pipelines then we’ve already lost. I get why people argue about sandboxing, it’s an easier problem to solve. But you still end up with a compromised artefact which you cannot ship. So the benefit is negligible.
- fidotron 2mo ago
  > Nice sarcasm but you’re not actually addressing a solution to the problem I raised. Are you not concerned about an asteroid impact rendering you extinct during your next Rust build? Why not? That's the same level of relevance as your supposed concern. > So you’re now saying it’s ok to have exploits compiled into your application as long as it’s sandboxed? You need to act like it is compromised in all cases, just like everything else. > I wonder how customers of your application feel about that? I’m certainly not going to be entering my bank details into your ecommerce platform (to give just one obvious example why your suggestion wouldn’t work). So your version is "we trust everyone and don't verify anything". Yeah, that's going to work. By your "logic" firewalls wouldn't be necessary.
  - hnlmorg 2mo ago
    > Are you not concerned about an asteroid impact rendering you extinct during your next Rust build? Why not? That's the same level of relevance as your supposed concern. That’s a strawman argument and you’re still dodging the question. > You need to act like it is compromised in all cases, just like everything else. No. I act like compromised code is a legitimate risk regardless of how well your build pipeline is sandboxed. I don’t understand why this is a hard concept for you to grasp. > So your version is "we trust everyone and don't verify anything". Yeah, that's going to work. By your "logic" firewalls wouldn't be necessary. That’s the literal opposite of my point (as well as another strawman).
    - fidotron 2mo ago
      > That’s a strawman argument and you’re still dodging the question. Hmm . . . > 1. There isn’t a single universal standard for sandboxing across all the different platforms that are supported by Rust. That is a straw man, right there, designed to attempt to ignore the substance of the original statements. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.
      - hnlmorg 2mo ago
        I was replying to someone who suggested sandboxing by raising a couple of places their suggestion falls short. Did you even read this thread? Or just assumed “anyone suggesting sandboxing wouldn’t work must be an idiot”? Because you’ve managed to misrepresent my comments at every opportunity.

hnlmorg 2mo ago

> Yeah, let's hold up the entire world of offensive cybersecurity capability while you work on that. Sure they will wait. Nice sarcasm but you’re not actually addressing a solution to the problem I raised. > You don't. You sandbox the hell out of it too. So you’re now saying it’s ok to have exploits compiled into your application as long as it’s sandboxed? I wonder how customers of your application feel about that? I’m certainly not going to be entering my bank details into your ecommerce platform (to give just one obvious example why your suggestion wouldn’t work).

nathan_compton 2mo ago
This response seems disingenuous. It was never implied it was ok to have exploits in the compiled software, only that the blast radius is smaller if the compiled code is also sandboxed.
- hnlmorg 2mo ago
  Smaller maybe. But it’s still an unacceptable risk. I refer you back to my example of compiled code being used by customers. Arguing that compromised code is safer when sandboxed really misses the real problem: that you’re running compromised code in the first place. Hence my analogy of closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted. What we need is to ensure we have stronger safeguards in place to prevent bad code from reaching build pipelines. If it’s in the build pipelines then we’ve already lost. I get why people argue about sandboxing, it’s an easier problem to solve. But you still end up with a compromised artefact which you cannot ship. So the benefit is negligible.
fidotron 2mo ago
> Nice sarcasm but you’re not actually addressing a solution to the problem I raised. Are you not concerned about an asteroid impact rendering you extinct during your next Rust build? Why not? That's the same level of relevance as your supposed concern. > So you’re now saying it’s ok to have exploits compiled into your application as long as it’s sandboxed? You need to act like it is compromised in all cases, just like everything else. > I wonder how customers of your application feel about that? I’m certainly not going to be entering my bank details into your ecommerce platform (to give just one obvious example why your suggestion wouldn’t work). So your version is "we trust everyone and don't verify anything". Yeah, that's going to work. By your "logic" firewalls wouldn't be necessary.
- hnlmorg 2mo ago
  > Are you not concerned about an asteroid impact rendering you extinct during your next Rust build? Why not? That's the same level of relevance as your supposed concern. That’s a strawman argument and you’re still dodging the question. > You need to act like it is compromised in all cases, just like everything else. No. I act like compromised code is a legitimate risk regardless of how well your build pipeline is sandboxed. I don’t understand why this is a hard concept for you to grasp. > So your version is "we trust everyone and don't verify anything". Yeah, that's going to work. By your "logic" firewalls wouldn't be necessary. That’s the literal opposite of my point (as well as another strawman).
  - fidotron 2mo ago
    > That’s a strawman argument and you’re still dodging the question. Hmm . . . > 1. There isn’t a single universal standard for sandboxing across all the different platforms that are supported by Rust. That is a straw man, right there, designed to attempt to ignore the substance of the original statements. Your hypocrisy is unbelievable.
    - hnlmorg 2mo ago
      I was replying to someone who suggested sandboxing by raising a couple of places their suggestion falls short. Did you even read this thread? Or just assumed “anyone suggesting sandboxing wouldn’t work must be an idiot”? Because you’ve managed to misrepresent my comments at every opportunity.