Thoughts on webassembly?
http://webassembly.org/
At least as bad as JavaScript. It's a way to make you run proprietary software in your browser without thinking about it.
> C
I am willing to bet it is going to introduce buffer overflows to web pages
>>60003898
gross
>>60003898
Good idea, great performance, poor security.
With the state of things today, I'm not willing to give up security for performance.
>>60003898
sauce???
>>60004028
What security problems does it have?
>>60003898
I'd use this for web applications that don't run like complete shit with their 10mb of javascript
>>60003898
Oh great, I can't wait for the average /g/ tard who has no fucking idea what it is complaining that it's "insecure" when there's no possible way it could be.
>>60004061
There are a few. Check their repo to see their ongoing discussion
https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/issues/205
>>60004061
>>60004120
This is from their "Execution environment" page:
"Out of Bounds
Out of bounds accesses trap. If the access is a store, if any of the accessed bytes are out of bounds, none of the bytes are modified."
To me, as I am reading it, this suggest that, while you may not modify the bytes that are "out of bounds" (presumably in an array/buffer) it doesn't suggest you can't read them.
Another thing to consider is the fact that it is going to be a binary format. As I am not willing to spend more time studying this.
From what I could gather is that it is a sandboxed environment. And I remember where ESET was boasting with their sandbox only to be humiliated when the sandbox had some bug to allow viruses to fool it into thinking they are a safe program.
Other than this I don't exactly know how is this supposed to work. So If someone can clarify/had experience with it I'd like to hear it too.
c-cute
I, for one, welcome our new wasm overlords.
It might have its weaknesses but the thought of all the js web artisans whose "skills" would become worthless makes me want it to succeed.
>>60004038
Koe de Oshigoto