David Bruant wrote:
Le 12/02/2012 23:47, Brendan Eich a écrit :
The concern (no trolling here) is at least about attack surface. If
there's no setter that can be extracted, there's no need for the
"frame check" (however phrased). Adding that check adds more
machinery to get wrong or have interact in unexpected ways with other
moving parts.
I'm not sure what you've described is directly a concern of attack
surface.
No, there is new attack surface (API in the language) compared to *not*
reflecting __proto__ as an accessor at all.
I think it's rather a concern of "potential bugs surface"
Yes, that goes with attack surface unless it's redundant API to no new
internals. But the frame check requires new internal implementation work.
(which can indirectly lead to security issues) and I agree that it's a
valid concern. However, the version where the check is based on the
Object.prototype identity sounds it could be written quite safely in a
couple of lines of JS, no ?
Let's stop making a trivial matter of something that isn't fully
attacked yet. __proto__ as pseudo-data property has been around for ~13
years. An accessor variant, days at most. My gut is still unhappy!
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
