security-research

e're not discussing theoretical means with which you could sandbox an application, we're talking about how apps are actually used in reality. If you need to fire up a virtual machine every time you use your favorite desktop apps, then you're only proving my point that they're not inherently very secure. Not to mention, the average user probably has no idea what Docker or a virtual machine even is. Like I said in my original response, lots of things are possible in theory, but in practice web browsers are much better at sandboxing apps than desktop operating systems (and even better than mobile operating systems). And by the way, you can run a browser inside of a vm too, so if anything the technologies you're advocating for bolster the security of web apps rather than compete with them. > If anything, modern browsers are so complex (and getting worse with time) that the attack surface is big Ironically, a lot of that complexity arises from the web's insistence on security. V8 is complex because it has so many safeguards in place to sandbox JavaScript, and that sandboxing is taken very seriously. There's a reward anywhere from 10,000 to 150,000 USD if you can escape the sandbox [2][3]. Browsers are inherently more secure than desktop apps because they limit access to the underlying platform. Someone developing malware as a web app has to first escape the browser sandbox, just to gain the privileges that a desktop app has natively. If it helps, you can think of every desktop app as a webapp which has already escaped the browser. > Moreover, Web UIs bring their own class of issues that don't really apply to native apps. No, web developers have just spent so much time thinking about security, that native app developers haven't even realized these security issues are relevant yet. It took years for Apple and Google to come to the brilliant conclusion that they should notify users when an app is reading from the clipboard, something which at the time was considered just a browser "class of issue". Maybe in 2034 they'll figure this out for desktop apps. > But CORS is really a browser thing, I don't think it really makes sense to compare it to anything outside the "webview world". It makes sense to compare it to things outside of the browser because it protects users and servers. You seem to want to disqualify any point I make that you can't disprove. If you don't think web technology is comparable to anything outside the browser, then what are we even arguing about? This whole discussion has been about comparing the security of web apps to non-web apps. > If security is your concern (and you seem to insist that it is), then webapps are really not better than the alternatives. Actually, the Apple Store and the Play Store (to give an example in the mobile world) allow Apple and Google to somehow monitor the apps that users install, which is most certainly more secure than a model where anyone can load any webapp from any website. Security is not some new thing I'm insisting on, it's been my whole point from the very beginning. You're just finally deciding to engage with me about it, instead of derailing the conversation constantly. Apple and Google have to monitor which apps make it to their app stores, BECAUSE apps are so much more prone to security problems. You once again have it completely backwards. No one has to gatekeep websites because browsers are so much better at sandboxing applications. And allow me to remind you that you admitted you have no idea how iOS sandboxing works, so you can't really be confident about this stance even if it did make sense. And now you're arguing in favor of the app store duopoly which contradicts your point about software diversity. You can't have it both ways. You're trying to hold on to two contradictory points at the same time: you don't like the supposed lack of browser diversity (which is why you seem to detest Chromium), but you like the supposed security guarantees of the mobile app store duopoly, which is even less diverse. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38919389 [2] https://github.com/google/security-research/blob/master/v8ct... [3] https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/5745167867576320/c...

o observed that when Nebula operates at 100% CPU usage, you get lots of package loss. This causes software that expects reasonable timings on ~0.2ms links to fail (e.g. consensus software like Consul, or Ceph). This in turn led to flakiness / intermittent outages. I had to resolve to move the big data pushing softwares like Ceph outside of the VPN to get 10 Gbit/s speed for those, and to avoid downtimes due to the packet loss. Such software like Ceph has its own encryption, but I don't trust it, and that mistrust was recently proven right again [3]. So I'm currently looking to move the Ceph into WireGuard. Summary: For small-data use, tinc and Nebula are fine, but if you start to push real data, they break. [1]: https://github.com/gsliepen/tinc/issues/218 [2]: https://github.com/slackhq/nebula/issues/637 [3]: https://github.com/google/security-research/security/advisor...