Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Feb 2013 13:21 UTC
Opera Software De kogel is door de kerk: as we already talked about earlier, Opera is going to switch to the WebKit engine, leaving its own Presto rendering engine behind. We didn't yet know if they would the switch only on mobile or on the desktop as well, and they cleared that up too: both mobile and desktop Opera Browsers will switch to the WebKit rendering engine.
Thread beginning with comment 552424
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 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

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

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by Soulbender on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:26 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Security is important. This isn't minor flaws, it is pretty damn serious.


But that still doesn't explain why Microsoft has not implemented it ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 08:27 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

very funny ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow
by cdude on Thu 14th Feb 2013 15:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by lucas_maximus on Thu 14th Feb 2013 17:34 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Fact is Firefox, Chrome are both way more secure then IE. Fact is Firefox, Chrome, both implement WebGL, IE doesn't. So?


Conjecture. I wonder why we have our browsers patched by every company with security vunerabilities. Nothing is secure and WebGL is insecure by design as the article states, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT!

And come on, Microsoft crying about WebGL security while doing ActiveX and Silverlight can't be taken serious.


ActiveX is off these days by default unless it is a trusted plugin, much like flash. I suspect silverlight is the same. This isn't 2004 anymore.

Find arguments that aren't over 8 years old please.

The biggest security thread to browsers has been the Java Plugin for years now.

For native, direct access to hardware. Compiled Javascript, eg V8 and WebCoreScript, native code, all do. Its not magic but pretty standard.


From the penetration testing company, which I dunno actually make money doing this stuff.

It would be unreasonable to expect full conformance to the complete specification of a new standard: there are always likely to be edge cases. But, as we have stressed before, some areas of WebGL need to be carefully implemented to prevent security issues arising and unfortunately in this case, because security-related conformance tests are not clearly identified, it is not possible to determine if an implementation is secure. This has been a contributory factor in security issues being missed by developers of the current browser implementations of WebGL, which has in turn created serious security flaws. Browser developers should start banning non-conformant configurations as they are identified until the security issues that have been highlighted are resolved.

Context therefore recommends that users and system administrators disable WebGL.


Sorry I am going to take a penetration testing companies' word over yours.

Edited 2013-02-14 17:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow
by Nelson on Thu 14th Feb 2013 18:43 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Silverlight adds an additional layer of indirection to the graphics card API calls.

WebGL is little more than a way to marshal OpenGL calls from the browser to the graphics card through JavaScript.

Silverlight can be disabled, uninstalled, black listed, etc

Silverlight includes protection against 3D driver DOS and even black lists graphics card known to exhibit this problem, putting pressure on graphics card developers.

Does WebGL do anything of the sort? No.

Let's face it, WebGL is a proprietary API brainchild of the Kronos Group who are not a standard setting organization and WebGL is not ubiquitous both in install base or in use on websites, so it is not afforded its standard status through those means either.

This is akin to Microsoft introducing WebDX and claiming it to be a 3D web standard by their own fiat.

And yet, since its not Microsoft, people like you will rush to find a justification, ANY justification for this steaming pile of shit.

It is beyond me how some people can be as egotistic to claim that Microsoft should implement a standard to their web browser, which ships by default on Windows, and thus has an installed base of hundreds of millions of peple, especially when its not a standard at all, and hasn't been properly vetted for security.

People can draw false equivalencies all day about Silverlight and WebGL, but the FACT is that Microsoft has NEVER pushed Silverlight INTO the browser. Its always been a plugin. Microsoft is NOT forcing or lobbying to have Silverlight become a standard of the web.

Stop the bullshit lies.

Reply Parent Score: 3