Re:This shouldn't have happened: A vulnerability postmortem
by pjmlp on Friday December 03, 2021 @01:41AM
(#29427294)
I was expecting that people don't oversell WebAssbemly as some kind of magic pixie dust of security, anyone that knows a bit about security spots those flaws.
You know what is also sandboxed? An OS process.
Ah, but an OS process has a wider syscalls surface, well lets than bring WASI or JavaScript bindings into the picture.
Re:This shouldn't have happened: A vulnerability postmortem
by titzer on Saturday December 04, 2021 @11:48AM
(#29442023)
At least we are on the same page on the level of sandboxing provided. For the record, it was your comment that called it a "big mistake" to not have finer-grained memory protection. I explained why we did that. And now you're saying someone "oversold" it as magic pixie dust? I'm not sure which hype train you're referring to, TBH. It wasn't core members or the CG, as we understood very clearly which security properties we were gaining and which we were not gaining.
Wasm's sandboxing makes it impossible to escalate the privilege of a program or acquire capabilities that it didn't have before (i.e. were not explicit imported and granted). That's a strictly stronger primitive than a random userspace Unix process.