|
|
|
|
|
|
by samiv
22 hours ago
|
|
|
Sorry but how exactly does the sandboxing help? You download and run an app that you expect to be useful and that you need. The app needs permission to access your data. If you want to use the application what choice do you have except to grant it access? Point being you wouldn't run untrusted code in the first place and for "trusted code" you end up accepting it's access requirements anyway. So logically I'd think that the malware would just get piggy bagged into actual non-obvious utility apps and nothing is gained. Second problem is that the security model hoops make for terrible APIs and user experiences. Just look at the current filesystem browser APIs. It must be mentally challenging to design APIs to Be usable and the nerf them for security purposes to make them "not too usable". Finally one must note that at least right now the webasm ecosystem is rather immature and the de-facto only tool (emscripten) is an amateur hour hobby project. So it's going to take some decades still before the tooling is really getting there. |
|
|
But it doesn't need network access to be useful, so it doesn't have that permission and can't exfiltrate your data?