| |||||||||||||
Gnash, Lightspark, and ShumwayGnash, Lightspark, and ShumwayPosted Nov 25, 2012 21:35 UTC (Sun) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281)In reply to: Gnash, Lightspark, and Shumway by khim Parent article: Gnash, Lightspark, and Shumway
You are right that a small sandbox for C++ can be safer than a big one for JS. It's a fact that sandboxing a JS engine is a hard problem, it requires PICs and so forth to be fast.
But the web platform *forces* everyone to have a JS engine. So that work is already done (and the sandboxing is quite good these days). Adding another sandbox is a net increase in vulnerabilities. You can't not have the JS sandbox, but you can not have the C++ one.
Regarding 100x vs 50x - try 6x vs. 3x in modern JS engines on modern codebases.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||