News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Xterm.js by hulitu on Friday October 08, 2021 @07:55AM (#28798194)
"Build terminals in the browser" ... and give your passwords there, and type commands. What can go wrong.
Re:Xterm.js by sime2009 on Friday October 08, 2021 @02:07PM (#28802230)
You are aware that millions of people use web browsers each day to do their banking, purchase products, and generally run businesses?
Re:Xterm.js by lhnz on Friday October 08, 2021 @08:36AM (#28798489)
Are terminals better sandboxed when run outside of a browser?
Re:Xterm.js by rbanffy on Friday October 08, 2021 @08:49AM (#28798622)
Usually yes. They are running in a completely different process than the browser.
Re:Xterm.js by chungy on Friday October 08, 2021 @02:29PM (#28802479)
Don't be ridiculous. The only and obvious answer to the question is "no" -- the terminal itself and all commands inside it run unimpeded.
Re:Xterm.js by rbanffy on Saturday October 09, 2021 @06:51AM (#28808700)
A malicious website would have a hard time capturing (or injecting) info an OS terminal running on an entirely different process than it would on a browser with imperfect context separation.

You clearly misunderstood the issue.

Re:Xterm.js by emilfihlman on Friday October 08, 2021 @08:12AM (#28798323)
Running in the browser is no more (or less) untrusted than running a dedicated terminal client.
Re:Xterm.js by tyingq on Friday October 08, 2021 @08:26AM (#28798419)
That a terminal in the browser can't make ssh connections without a separate http or websocket bridge complicates that. Depends on that bridge and who/how/where it's running.
Re:Xterm.js by rbanffy on Friday October 08, 2021 @08:52AM (#28798642)
When was the last case when a malicious website or script could capture content or keystrokes directed at another tab? Really curious, because it seems an obvious attack vector.
Re:Xterm.js by amalcon on Friday October 08, 2021 @10:58AM (#28800058)
2018 at the earliest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerabilit...

It's not a browser vulnerability per se, but it's still mitigated by having a separate address space.

Re:Xterm.js by colejohnson66 on Friday October 08, 2021 @09:09AM (#28798827)
At least in the last decade, I don’t think that’s even possible on the “big” browsers. There were vulnerabilities involving <iframe>s, but I don’t know enough about those.
Re:Xterm.js by intc on Friday October 08, 2021 @10:56AM (#28800034)
Of course it is. In most cases you do not have any sort of guarantees regarding the browser (which it self usually is more complex piece of software than all your operating system and it's accessories calculated together - difficult to audit - known to collect metrics etc etc). In addition one can sandbox their local terminal pretty effectively - With Tomoyo or some other MAC technology. It's not so bad idea to actually isolate your browser too (with Mandatory Access Control) - It usually has no business for a global view on your filesystem or local network resources.
Re:Xterm.js by noergl on Friday October 08, 2021 @09:00AM (#28798730)
I tend to disagree. The fact, that a browser engine and JS is involved raises the bar significantly during security audits. It brings additional third-party players into the chain you have to trust. Meanwhile I suggest to read https://xtermjs.org/docs/guides/security/.