Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Feb 2013 13:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 552422
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[5]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:08
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow"
Did you even read the links? There are serious security concerns because it lets the browser basically have full control of the hardware.
Security is important. This isn't minor flaws, it is pretty damn serious.
There are plenty of sites that don't work in Firefox but work in Chrome.
Edited 2013-02-14 08:27 UTC
RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by Soulbender on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:26
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by cdude on Thu 14th Feb 2013 15:25
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
Fact is Firefox, Chrome are both way more secure then IE. Fact is Firefox, Chrome, both implement WebGL, IE doesn't. So?
And come on, Microsoft crying about WebGL security while doing ActiveX and Silverlight can't be taken serious.
For native, direct access to hardware. Compiled Javascript, eg V8 and WebCoreScript, native code, all do. Its not magic but pretty standard.
Edited 2013-02-14 15:29 UTC





Member since:
2010-02-10
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/87696-webgl-is-fundamentally-f...
http://www.contextis.com/research/blog/webgl-more-webgl-security-fl...
BUT HEY LETS SUPPORT IT even though there are major security issues.
So because something has a flaw, it is crap.
What amazing logic!
I love how the Microsoft fans are attacking WebGL despite Microsoft's alternative being even worse in the security department.
Wow, a single vulnerability in WebGL! If that means it's crap, then all browsers, ever, are crap.