On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:31 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote: > From email on this thread and from private email I've received, I'm a bit > worried that my earlier message was misunderstood.
I wrote "covert channel" too, when inviiting you to reply -- sorry about that, you're right that the side channel is the bigger worry. > I agree that we're not going to secure JavaScript well enough to solve the > covert channel problem. (Will anything solve that problem, short of the kind of communication technology described in science fiction, e.g the phones in http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Lines-Bear-Greg/dp/0345448375 ?) > (Fortunately, regarding the WeakMap enumerability question, we seem to have > consensus to stick with non-enumerability on other grounds anyway. But this > side channel question will reappear so we may as well understand the limits > on how well we can resist them.) Leo does not concur and I suspect others (Arv) agree with him. IMHO Leo's point about weak listener maps and FRP is a good challenge to the consensus that you, Erik Corry, and I among others do share. I need to read Greg Cooper's thesis and medidate on our myriad C++ weak listener use cases before replying further. /be _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
