Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th May 2010 18:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 424488
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Kilogramm
by reduz on Sat 15th May 2010 08:45
in reply to "RE: Comment by Kilogramm"
Not only native client is sandboxed, what you compile
runs on any platform , even your cellphone (given you compile an ARM target together with the x86 one). ActiveX used the windows API, this uses a portable, HTML5-friendly api. In the future, pNaCl will add an extra layer to ensure that you compile it one and runs on any platform/




Member since:
2010-01-21
ActiveX was completely un-sandboxed. That's why it was such a horrible mistake.
There are two working approaches to the problem of native code in the browser:
1. Don't let sites push native code to you and let them pick what functionality they want, not what specific code they want. (This is how NPAPI and Konqueror's KParts-based plugin API work)
2. Let sites push you stuff, but sandbox it. (This is how Flash, Java Applets, and Native Client work, though Native Client is the first to try it with native machine code)
Native Client focuses more heavily on designing a failsafe sandbox than Flash and Java though, since the potential harm from a breach is higher. (It also helps that Native Client can just reuse existing libraries rather than having to cook up a new set the way Flash and Java did)
Edited 2010-05-14 21:18 UTC