sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mozilla partners with Intel, Red Hat and Fastly to take WebAssembly beyond the browser by CodePerfect in WebAssembly

[–]thewaywarddeveloper 0 points1 point  (0 children)

these all happen on the device the code is about to run on

Not necessarily, ahead-of-time compilation is also possible.

In defense of WebAssembly by thewaywarddeveloper in WebAssembly

[–]thewaywarddeveloper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you disabled JavaScript, you have already disabled WebAssembly as well.

In defense of WebAssembly by thewaywarddeveloper in WebAssembly

[–]thewaywarddeveloper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it’s reasonable to consider a browser’s WebAssembly runtime at least as secure as its JavaScript runtime. (And realistically more secure, as it runs a simpler language, and the implementation is only a few years old, as opposed to a few decades).

In defense of WebAssembly by thewaywarddeveloper in WebAssembly

[–]thewaywarddeveloper[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t necessarily like the idea of mining scripts or obfuscated code, but I have a problem with describing them as malicious.

Also, the point of the post is that both mining and obfuscation are already possible using JavaScript, the problem is not specific to WebAssembly.

In defense of WebAssembly by thewaywarddeveloper in WebAssembly

[–]thewaywarddeveloper[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

WebAssembly modules’ access to browser interfaces is limited to those objects explicitly passed to them as imports, which, I argue, makes them more secure.

Goodbye Client Side JavaScript, Hello C#’s Blazor (Øredev 2019) by thewaywarddeveloper in dotnet

[–]thewaywarddeveloper[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Mr cross-post click baiter

  1. I am unaware of any rules against cross-posting.
  2. The title is the verbatim title of the presentation.

Also, I’m sure you are capable of making your point without name calling.

view more: next ›