On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> wrote:
> The threat (not sure how real) is not a string telling the backtrace, it's > an object reference to an ancestor function in the call stack. > The ancestor function leak is vastly worse than the backtrace into leak, but both are real. http://code.google.com/p/es-lab/source/browse/trunk/src/ses/debug.js is SES's attempt to secure backtrace leakage on some browsers. > > /be > > Domenic Denicola wrote: > >> I'm becoming increasing convinced that the poison pill approach to >>> securing the caller chain is a poor approach. We keep finding leaks in and >>> it does nothing to prevent implementation from inventing new ways to expose >>> the stating they are trying to hide. I now think we would be better off >>> with a general,non-algorithmic restriction on conforming implementation >>> that forbid them from exposing elements of the caller chain in the >>> situations that the poison pills were intended to address. >>> >> >> This sounds a bit drastic—wouldn't it preclude V8's >> Error.captureStackTrace? >> ______________________________**_________________ >> es-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >> >> -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
