[anon1385]

If large amounts of code written in memory unsafe languages is such a concern then Mozilla should immediately stop adding large numbers of highly complex new features implemented in unsafe code to Firefox every year, mostly to do things that have absolutely nothing to do with displaying web pages but are enabled by default for political reasons.

Just like switching to PDF.js was a decision taken to try and reduce the security attack surface, the decisions to add webgl, webrtc, webfonts, webm, websockets, new css features and so on were all decisions taken in the full knowledge that adding those things would vastly increase the attack surface and inevitably lead to security exploits. These new web features are responsible for a slew of new vulnerabilities and new classes of information leaks.

[ronjouch]

> (a) If large amounts of code written in memory unsafe languages is such a concern then Mozilla should immediately stop adding large numbers of highly complex new features implemented in unsafe code to Firefox every year,

> (b) ... mostly to do things that have absolutely nothing to do with displaying web pages but are enabled by default for political reasons.

(a) Mozilla is working on adding/replacing parts of Firefox with a language emphasizing security (among other things). First Rust push in Firefox landed a Rust mp4 parser [1], on 2015-06-17. Others will come; in the meantime, the world keeps turning, and users / web. developers expect these new web features, which Moz devs implement with the infrastructure they have and know. They're not going to cross their hands and declare a moratorium until Rust (or other security-mitigating features/changes) are fully integrated.

(b) Not sure what you mean by political reasons and maybe you want to stay stuck in 1992, but I don't, and like many users I do want "webgl, webrtc, webfonts, webm, websockets, new css features and so on" .

EDIT I'd have added "You can install links if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents", which you would have answered with "But I can't, every website require these features now", to which I'd have answered "a. Yeah, not everyone (that's an understatement) does progressive enhancement, but ultimately b. The times they are a-changing"

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1175322

[baghira]

It doesn't help your position the fact that you are unable to express it without belittling anybody who disagrees with you using stuff like "stay stuck in 1992" ("If you don't like America you should go to Russia!").

Also, the links/lynx jokes have really gotten tired, plenty of people browse the web with ublock, no(t)script, webgl and webrtc disabled and so on. The pretense that anybody who tries to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not it a luddist is frankly irritating.

And the whole language debate is completely off point, we have plenty of safe(r) languages for writing stuff, the misguided idea is that the only way to do so is to use javascript and stick the resulting program inside the browser.

[ronjouch]

> It doesn't help your position the fact that you are unable to express it without belittling anybody who disagrees with you using stuff like "stay stuck in 1992" ("If you don't like America you should go to Russia!").

True, that was useless, could have just said "I and many users do want these features" . Thanks, and sorry anon.

> the links/lynx jokes have really gotten tired, plenty of people browse the web with ublock, no(t)script, webgl and webrtc disabled and so on. The pretense that anybody who tries to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not it a luddist is frankly irritating.

That wasn't a links joke, I could have phrased it with your own words "You can install ublock, no(t)script, and disable webgl/webrtc if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents" , and "But I can't, every website require these features now" would still be an answer.

My conclusion isn't that "anyone trying to retain a modicum of control on what its browser does and does not is a luddist" --and I do use some of these extensions too--, it's that the barebones web experience anon wants is broken now (and probably forever), due to:

a. Sadly, non-respect of progressive enhancement in cases where it's possible (documents).

b. The fact that _some_ parts of the web are increasingly not documents, but whole apps whose progressive-enhancement baseline (running without all the bells and whistles) would do nothing because they depend on these features.

> And the whole language debate is completely off point, we have plenty of safe(r) languages for writing stuff, the misguided idea is that the only way to do so is to use javascript and stick the resulting program inside the browser.

Yes. Development practices, testing, fuzzing, and safe(r) languages, like Rust.

[baghira]

Ok, I guess that I misread the tone of your post (i.e. we largely agree).

I don't however think that the web it that broken without those features (javascript being the harder one to police). Judging from the browsing habits of my family members, they don't spend nearly as much time inside web applications as the HN news cycle would lead me to believe: some news sites, some webmail (and even there, when presented with a decent looking mail application they happily switched), the most basic functions of facebook, and "utilities" i.e. web banking, traveling, university websites.

None of these uses requires the ability to play quake3 inside firefox, or are really applications inside a webpage. Same probably goes for all the browsers in the workplace, for instance.

I'll agree with you that few sites will do progressive-enhancement (and decent accessibiliy), I'm just disappointed in the defeatist attitude of browser vendors and expert users: the idea of having a browser safe mode that you can lock down doesn't strike me as such an impossiblity and it would give some incentive to developers to put their act together.

[ronjouch]

> None of these uses requires the ability to play quake3 inside firefox, or are really applications inside a webpage.

Maybe, for now. But WebRTC/WebSockets have a value proposal for real-time interaction in collaborative office suites. Canvas/WebGL have one for performance in authoring tools and for articles illustrations. Documents are readable in your default serif/sans-serif set, but WebFonts are a good designer/author tool just like fonts are in print. Etc... Renouncing this added value because each new feature increases the attack surface sounds like throwing the baby with the bathwater.

> I'm just disappointed in the defeatist attitude of browser vendors and expert users: the idea of having a browser safe mode that you can lock down doesn't strike me as such an impossiblity and it would give some incentive to developers to put their act together.

Two thoughts:

1. Such a "Safe mode" disabling features presents high risks of breaking tons of sites, leaving non-expert users in the dark, and these users are the most likely to be clueless about what's wrong and may just switch to another browser. In the case of JavaScript, Firefox is actually going the opposite way of what you want, by making it harder to disable it [1]. The closest to your wish with Firefox is probably to use their LTS version, ESR, where the dust settled for a little while more (but which ironically, was affected by today's exploit ^^).

2. Can what you are proposing be a "mode"? Take the "Reader View" mode of recent Firefox builds, proposing a Readability-like mode streamlining long reads: this one is clearly a _mode_, you click on it, the text turns big, page gets sepia, side content disappears, you know you're in it and you're not going to constantly browse with it. But would you alternate between "default" mode and "Safe" mode? What a terrible choice to make, you would certainly stay on "Safe" mode, and at this point it becomes transparent that the browser constantly altering content, deepening cluelessness for non-expert users in case of breakage.

2.1. EDIT this reminds me a lot of Polaris tracking protection [2], a project/feature of recent Firefox builds to block http requests of trackers, for privacy. I use the feature, and even I, a moderately "expert" user, was left puzzled when it blocked all the images an article (can't recover it, it was a Russian article/domain of a photographer exploring the remnants of a space shuttle launch military site). Anyway, Polaris had the images domain in its blacklist and blocked them. Glancing at the console, I saw Polaris blocking and disabled the time of a page refresh. But how to handle this simply for non-expert users? This is tough to implement, and directly opposes the "don't break userland" equivalent of the web.

[1] http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/ , https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=873709 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5968237

[2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Polaris#Tracking_protection

[baghira]

1. Yes, you have higlighted a source of frustration: currently to limit certain features one must either install half a dozen extensions on chromium or firefox, or stick to ESR versions of firefox, or gtkwebkit browsers (which I'm afraid do lag behind the apple upstream when it comes to security fixes). Hopefully with CEF and servo swapping out an engine for another will be easier, so the situation may improve a bit.

In an ideal world, this would be the purpose standards are: all the browsers agree on a set of minimum features, and security conscious users or administrators can decide to stick to that (I have no clue on whether other browser vendors would be interested). This would break websites in a predictable manner. After all sooner or later browser vendors will probably decide to break all tls-less websites. Some websites would be broken, but for people using a screen reader the web is already broken, and at least the would have a clear metric to point at when dealing with banks/news sites/institutions: if it breaks firefox/chrome/safari/edge safe mode, the webdesigner is doing something wrong. Similarly the limit imposed by organizations would help: if you are an entrerprise website you must render correcly in this mode. I'm convinced that administrators enforcing a "no IE policy" on the workplace did help move us away from a world in which frontpage's HTML was acceptable. My parents and users of entreprise workstation don't have browser choice anyway: they cannot install software.

2. Sure, the problem with modes is the problem with the UAC: you end up asking permission so often that you devalue the role of permssions, or you require the user to constantly check the current status of the application (e.g. the lock icon for SSL), which most users won't do. Polaris probably suffers from similar problems, as all "restrictive" extensions do. I'll admit that my solution is squarely aimed at users that cannot switch browser (or cannot switch browser mode), similarly to the gatekeeper role of apple on iphone, only giving the power to switch to administators/technically advanced users, which apple does not.

[anon1385]

>Mozilla is working on adding/replacing parts of Firefox with a language emphasizing security (among other things).

The safety of the implementation language is far from the only concern when considering the security impact of modern browser features. The recent WebRTC issues are well documented, as was the HSTS 'supercookies' issue. Even something seemingly fairly innocuous like css keyframe animation can be used to do remote timing attacks without js to leak browser state such as browsing history[1]. SVG filters in Firefox allowed information to be read from arbitrary pages through timing attacks, till they removed some of the optimisations[2]. Those kinds of things are not solvable with a safer language (in some cases that probably makes fixing timing attacks more difficult/impossible). I'm sure there are more of these kinds of things to be found. Some of them are realistically never going to be fixed now because they are baked into the standards and the browser vendors clearly care more about animating gizmos and not breaking existing sites than leaking users browser state.

[1] https://www.nds.rub.de/media/nds/veroeffentlichungen/2014/07...

[2] http://www.contextis.com/documents/2/Browser_Timing_Attacks.... and https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2013-5... Read the bug to see how difficult it was for the devs to fix the issues without making the feature unusable - it took years

>I'd have added "You can install links if you want a simple browser letting you read static html documents", which you would have answered with "But I can't, every website require these features now", to which I'd have answered "a. Yeah, not everyone (that's an understatement) does progressive enhancement, but ultimately b. The times they are a-changing"

I'm not concerned about myself. I disable stuff like WebGL that I don't use, and I block most Javascript etc etc. My concern is for the average user who has absolutely no idea these features even exist, never mind knowing which ones they can turn off without breaking the sites they use. The general insecurity of the web affects me (and everybody else). When a site gets hacked because one of the admins was exploited by a browser vulnerability and my details get leaked that affects me.

[ronjouch]

> The safety of the implementation language is far from the only concern when considering the security impact of modern browser features. [...] Those kinds of things are not solvable with a safer language (in some cases that probably makes fixing timing attacks more difficult/impossible). I'm sure there are more of these kinds of things to be found. Some of them are realistically never going to be fixed now because they are baked into the standards and the browser vendors clearly care more about animating gizmos and not breaking existing sites than leaking users browser state.

Good points, didn't know about the SVG exploit having taken so long. Rust (which, as you say, is no silver bullet) is one data point showing Mozilla's commitment to security, but the variance in the time to fixing exploits is worth consideration. Today's exploit was fixed in one day, SVG took 18 months. Why? Did Moz do a good job at prioritizing based on the severity / availability of exploits in the wild, or was the long time to SVG fix just caused by technical difficulties? I don't know, maybe a mozillian involved can comment.