5 ms·
Is there scientific proof of above claim such as "WASM sandboxing is pretty good!" ? At least most if not all ffmpeg decoders and demuxers are fuzzed all the t
by pbmahol 2y ago
Is there scientific proof of above claim such as "WASM sandboxing is pretty good!" ?
At least most if not all ffmpeg decoders and demuxers are fuzzed all the time and any found issue is addressed.
- lxgr 2y agoFuzzing is good, robust sandboxing is better, I'd argue. There's just a much smaller surface area to cover for the latter. > Is there scientific proof of above claim such as "WASM sandboxing is pretty good!" ? I'm not aware of quantitative studies, but just from a design perspective, the surface that a WASM runtime presents seems intrinsically easier to defend than that of, say, the full Unix userspace that ffmpeg instances usually run in. Anecdotally, many high-profile iOS and Android vulnerabilities originated in some more or less obscure codec implementation.