Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox and Chromium

madaidans-insecurities.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–12 of 12 posts

Re: Firefox and Chromium

#11

Post by lucideer »

bnurun wrote: post #5
lucideer wrote: post #2

Would be interested to see threat models alongside these analyses. Something lacking in a lot of these lower-level sandboxing approaches is the direct impact they have on patterns of website developing and user priorities. Take for example "site isolation": > Site isolation runs every website inside its own sandbox so that an exploit in one website cannot access the data from another. What is "one website" here? Is i…

Site Isolation can mitigate Spectre attacks: https://security.googleblog.com/2018/07/mitigating-spectre-w...

That's mentioned in the article. That's great, but tangential to my question.

Re: Firefox and Chromium

#12

Post by rockdoe »

bnurun wrote: post #8
rockdoe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those Chrome CVEs are for single-digit version numbers from 10 years ago. Not that this has any actual relevance to the argument (which is that media decoding is a huge risk vector for browsers, and the kind of thing a threat model looks at), but I'll humor you: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-0894 I'm sure they sandbox FFmpeg more extensively now. You are making my argument for me. Chrome sandboxes Vorbis…

Considering where Firefox and Chrome overall stand on sandboxing, two libraries isn't substantial. Chrome has consistent, extensive sandboxing, and Firefox has sandboxing here and there as an afterthought. I looked into trying Firefox on Android but it apparently doesn't even have a sandbox.

two libraries isn't substantial

I've already disproven this assertion by pointing out those exact libraries are real life exploit vectors instead of theoretical weaknesses that most of the rest of the page talks about. Repeating the wrong assertion doesn't doesn't make it true.

Chrome has consistent, extensive sandboxing, and Firefox has sandboxing here and there as an afterthought.

This isn't really true either, the Chrome sandbox varies in what it blocks per process type, and it's the same for Firefox. The processes do have to talk to the operating system to accomplish anything useful! The original article also seems to completely miss this, at least in the Chrome case.

Post reply on HN