- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 15:31:00 -0700
- To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org CSS" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
[...] >> >> So you are suggesting to reference the following specifically, is that >>right? >> >>http://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/specs/latest/#SUPPORTED_GLSL_CONSTR >>UCTS > >Both that section (section 4.3) and section 6 "Differences Between WebGL >and OpenGL ES 2.0" would be useful references. [vh] ok, I'll add these references. > >>> >>> Finally, it's good that you include section 6.3 on security. That is >>>obviously the main sticking point of WebGL, and of WebCL if and when it >>>becomes available. But I don't think you should characterize Denial of >>>Service as the only real security concern. WebGL represents the first >>>exposure of an API of the complexity of OpenGL to the web. GLSL is a >>>programming language which, unlike JavaScript, executes instructions >>>directly on the host machine. Exposing this kind of functionality to >>>content authors is unprecedented, and opens up brand new avenues for >>>malicious exploits. For that reason these drivers need to be hardened >>>against attacks like never before. >>> >>> As you say, this work is ongoing and I believe that WebGL and related >>>technologies will ultimately be as safe as any that are exposed to the >>>web today. But we're not there yet, which is why Apple includes the >>>functionality in its browsers, but leaves it disabled. On desktop it >>>can be turned on with a developer switch and on iOS it is only >>>available to iAd developers. >>> >>> We found that when we shipped WebGL 1.0 we should have erred on the >>>side of expressing greater concern about these issues, rather than >>>making them an aside. I think the same is true of CSS Shaders. >> >> Point taken. I did not mean that section to diminish the security >>concerns, but I can see that the sentence that says "Consequently, the >>main security consideration is a possible denial of service attack" >>should be worded differently. I'll do that. > >I know your intent is to appropriately raise the security concerns. But >as someone recently bitten in the ass by this, I can tell you that you >can't emphasize the significance of this issue enough to satisfy all the >scrutinizers out there! [vh] Thanks for the heads up and sharing the battle scars to prevent me from getting the same :-) I will update the wording. Kind regards, Vincent.
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 22:31:39 UTC