Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

winrumors.com

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#81
From the WebGL spec:

"It is possible to create, either intentionally or unintentionally, combinations of shaders and geometry that take an undesirably long time to render. This issue is analogous to that of long-running scripts, for which user agents already have safeguards. However, long-running draw calls can cause loss of interactivity for the entire window system, not just the user agent.

In the general case it is not possible to impose limits on the structure of incoming shaders to guard against this problem. Experimentation has shown that even very strict structural limits are insufficient to prevent long rendering times, and such limits would prevent shader authors from implementing common algorithms.

User agents should implement safeguards to prevent excessively long rendering times and associated loss of interactivity. Suggested safeguards include:

Splitting up draw calls with large numbers of elements into smaller draw calls. Timing individual draw calls and forbidding further rendering from a page if a certain timeout is exceeded. Using any watchdog facilities available at the user level, graphics API level, or operating system level to limit the duration of draw calls. Separating the graphics rendering of the user agent into a distinct operating system process which can be terminated and restarted without losing application state. The supporting infrastructure at the OS and graphics API layer is expected to improve over time, which is why the exact nature of these safeguards is not specified."

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#82
post #79
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked Paul Irish, Chome Developer relations: @paul_irish re http://bit.ly/kOZ7Lp - MSFT wrong? Security risk in Chrome/FF with WebGL? http://twitter.com/#!/paul_irish/status/81492337108328448 @AlexGraul i think chrome's record in pwn2own is a good indicator of our commitment to security while delivering great features. :)

Note he didn't actually answer the question.

I'm not at all an expert to handle details about the security of WebGL. I have no idea on that front.

I do know Chrome and FF just fixed a timing attack vector where you could apparently intuit the content of a crossdomain image by interpreting what hues were based on it via the application of shaders. Which means hypothetically you could read text. Like a crazy-person's OCR.

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#83
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note he didn't actually answer the question.

I'm not at all an expert to handle details about the security of WebGL. I have no idea on that front. I do know Chrome and FF just fixed a timing attack vector where you could apparently intuit the content of a crossdomain image by interpreting what hues were based on it via the application of shaders. Which means hypothetically you could read text. Like a crazy-person's OCR.

Or like virtual Van Eck phreaking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#84
post #74
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way IE is reliant on Windows and vice-versa, you can't really draw a clear line separating Windows and IE (at least not security-wise). It's very different with Mozilla and Webkit codebases, where the clean separation exists (as they are both multi-platform). I believe IE's base also carries lots of cruft from previous versions, something that complicates matters even more. Microsoft did a lot, quite possibly bec…

That's pretty much complete BS. IE is no more dependent on Windows than Chrome is, but yes, various bits of the Windows UI are dependent on the Trident engine in IE. Either way, IE is no more inherently insecure than any other browser, despite its many vulnerabilities in the past. In addition, security improvements in the OS itself affect not only IE, but any browser running on top of it, making your claims even more…

The part you seem not to get is that if you have a bad engineered product, it's only natural that you have to invest more than those who don't have poorly engineered products, regardless of how bad your track record ends up being.

As for your claim IE is no more dependent on Windows than Safari or Firefox, I will have to take your word for it, as it has been a long time (almost a decade) since I last inspected IE and what interfaces it used from the underlying OS. At that time, they both seemed very intimate.

And yes. I derive a lot of fun from observing Microsoft.

As for investments in an OS affecting all software running on it, it all depends on the fix not being the introduction of an improved API, as software using the old one will remain vulnerable.

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#86
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a response, but Microsoft supposedly thinks it is securable enough for Silverlight: "With the release of Silverlight 3 Beta 1 GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) acceleration (or hardware acceleration) is now available." I'd like to hear what could make that secure that couldn't be used with WebGL.

It's the same thing as Safari, IE, and Chrome using the GPU to composite pages: Silverlight is hardware accelerated, but does not expose the hardware acceleration primitives. GL or Direct3D expose more-or-less direct hardware access, which is very different.

It does in Silverlight 5 through the XNA API.

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#87
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a response, but Microsoft supposedly thinks it is securable enough for Silverlight: "With the release of Silverlight 3 Beta 1 GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) acceleration (or hardware acceleration) is now available." I'd like to hear what could make that secure that couldn't be used with WebGL.

It is a completely separate house / separate bed issue. You do not have permission to call Direct3D directly. You can't even do cool hacks like you can in WPF, stealing the Direct3D video feed and writing it to a movie file. Everything is abstracted away by (underpowered) APIs. All Secunia advisories on .NET Framework / Silverlight are presently patched, and the total number is relatively small compared to other tech…

Silverlight 5 is a better comparison, this blog has the details: http://muizelaar.blogspot.com/

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same thing as Safari, IE, and Chrome using the GPU to composite pages: Silverlight is hardware accelerated, but does not expose the hardware acceleration primitives. GL or Direct3D expose more-or-less direct hardware access, which is very different.

It does in Silverlight 5 through the XNA API.

Ah, awesome!

(I worked on XNA while at Microsoft about a year ago)

I knew that this was happening, but didn't know they released it yet. It's my understanding that they worked crazy hard to make this secure.

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#89

Whatever. Whoever makes WebGL games will benefit from 50% of the total browser market share, and this market share will keep increasing as I doubt the new versions of IE (9/10) will replace the older IE browsers, especially since the new ones only work on certain Windows versions. Whether Microsoft embraces WebGL or not, it's irrelevant, because they'd only add like 5% market share they have with IE9, anyway. I think…

But can Google and Mozilla ignore the security concerns that are a inherent part of WebGL?

Re: Microsoft refuses to endorse WebGL, labels it ‘harmful’

#90
post #4

For those who think that HTML/CSS/JS will replace native apps, just take a look at Microsoft, Apple and Google (yes, Google - no thanks for ditching the open standard h264 on Chrome). Standards, when they threaten to disrupt existing powerful players, will be ignored, delayed or sabotaged. Thus innovation that requires standards-based clients even with nimble outfits like Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Facebook pushing…

>thanks for ditching the open standard h264 on Chrome I think that someone may have lied to you when they explained the words "open" or "standard". Also, why am I "looking at" MSFT/AAPL/GOOG for in relation to HTML/CSS/JS apps? They fact that many are still native? Google's apps for iOS are web based, and I'm sure iCloud apps for Android will be web based. Microsoft just got done demoing HTML5/CSS3 applications for W…

> I think that someone may have lied to you when they explained the words "open" or "standard".

h.264 is not royalty free, but it is open and a standard (from Ars: http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/01/googles-dropping-h26... )

"In the traditional sense, H.264 is an open standard. That is to say, it was a standard designed by a range of domain experts from across the industry, working to the remit of a standards organization. In fact, two standards organizations were involved: ISO and ITU. The specification was devised collaboratively, with its final ratification dependent on the agreement of the individuals, corporations, and national standards bodies that variously make up ISO and ITU. This makes H.264 an open standard in the same way as, for example, JPEG still images, or the C++ programming language, or the ISO 9660 filesystem used on CD-ROMs. H.264 is unambiguously open."

Post reply on HN