On 6/17/2011 1:11 PM, Philip Chee wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:56:22 -0700, David E. Ross wrote:
On 5/12/11 5:36 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
On 5/12/11 4:55 PM, Robert Kaiser wrote:
WLS schrieb:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
WLS schrieb:
Is WebGL going to be disabled by default or is that something we will
need to do in about:config?
Why should it?
Because of the security threat.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/chrome_firefox_security_threat/
None of that is a real security threat that requires immediate action,
from all I know and heard (and I'm in Mozilla's security group). This
looks very much like some "investigator" trying to gather massive media
attention in his favor without a really good backing. Both "threats" are
low-impact concerns that we will look into but require no immediate
action. There will be a Mozilla blog post on this topic very soon.
Media is making every fly into an elephant if they think they can "sell
a scandal".
Robert Kaiser
US-CERT, an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
gives credence to this threat. See
<http://www.us-cert.gov/current/index.html#web_users_warned_to_turn>.
According to Slashdot, Micro$oft will not implement WebGL because of
security concerns. See
<http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/121236/Microsoft-Brands-WebGL-a-Harmful-Technology>.
Of course, the concern might really be the cost of implementing it
correctly.
A devastating counterpoint to Microsoft:
<http://muizelaar.blogspot.com/2011/06/webgl-considered-harmful.html>
Even more daunting from a Microsoft Guy:
http://www.realityprime.com/articles/why-microsoft-and-internet-explorer-need-webgl
--
~Justin Wood (Callek)
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
