FW: Proposal: safeEval

[Mike Samuel]

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 6:51 PM doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com> wrote:

> *This is silly.  I can want these without wanting them built using
> substandard tools.*
>
>
>
> That’s the point why I bring it to ES. Nothing on the “user land” can
> provide something reliable, apart a complete JS runtime library compiled to
> “WASM” or “asm.js”. And... that’s silly.
>
>
>
For the last time, why do you believe opcode filtering can?



>
> *From:* Mike Samuel <mikesamuel at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 22, 2018 6:04 PM
> *To:* doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Isiah Meadows <isiahmeadows at gmail.com>; es-discuss <
> es-discuss at mozilla.org>
> *Subject:* Re: FW: Proposal: safeEval
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 5:30 PM doodad-js Admin <doodadjs at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *“Blacklisting or whitelisting, that’s an open discussion”: It really
> isn't.*
>
>
>
> So for you, blacklisting or whitelisting is not opened to a discussion?
>
> No.
>
> Case based reasoning doesn't work when the partition of cases can't be
> enumerated so if we want confidence in our tools we ought prefer
> whitelisting.
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_2334123076367658371_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20180622/af7d67fd/attachment-0001.html>