Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"uses WebAssembly" - forgive me but what? How do I know my PDF isn't going to Russia? or China? I mean, I could wireshark it but I'd like to know more about what's in the webassembly. PDF's are sensitive to some organizations. As already stated, some orgs even block online pdf tools for obvious reasons.

I'm interested in this but I would be even more so if there was source so I can audit. Since it's running locally in my browser anyway.



> going to Russia? or China?

always ironic when ppl say this on websites hosted in the us, a country with the most documented cases of governmental organisation backdooring/spying :/


> always ironic when ppl say this on websites hosted in the us, a country with the most documented cases of governmental organisation backdooring/spying :/

That is because other countries do not let you document/publish this information. :-)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/04/world/europe/russia-censo...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/uks-online-safety-bill...

At least not as much as American courts will allow. The US has it's own censorship laws, but American resistance/choosing to ignore, is quite strong.


backdooring and censorship are two very different things


> backdooring and censorship are two very different things

Parent poster talked about backdooring being documented in the US, not comparing the two in general. I posted links about non-US governments making it illegal to document the backdooring or other things the government may worry about an unpopular reaction to. The practice of the 1st amendment in the US offers very strong, but not absolute, protections against this.


It’s most documented in the US, because in China and in Russia you can go to prison for documenting their activities.


Buddy I've got news for you if you think that Russia and China are more virtuous on the internet than the U.S.


China and Russia definitely do cybercrime, but:

> In its release, WikiLeaks said "Marble" was used to insert foreign language text into the malware to mask viruses, trojans and hacking attacks, making it more difficult for them to be tracked to the CIA and to cause forensic investigators to falsely attribute code to the wrong nation. The source code revealed that Marble had examples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Persian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7

The government and media pretends that attribution is a slam-dunk when it virtually never is. On the other hand, there are big career benefits to discovering the next "Chinese" malware vs. stumbling upon some US/EU script kiddy nonsense that included Chinese characters as a prank/red herring. There is incentive to misattribute & sensationalize.

I would wager that ~100% of CIA/NSA malware (or any state actor, really) has a plausible red herring cover. It would be foolish not to.


i'm even less virtuous than russia or china, yet i can't spy on you

(once again, it's a combination of current technical capability, concentration of current and early important technologies being developed in your jurisdiction, concentration of current and popular technologies being developed in your jurisdiction, etc)


True, though that's because the US has a fairly free press and the Freedom of Information Act.


And the CloudAct and gagging orders


HA


You do have a point, but you probably should look into how many ATPs the Chinese government employs on MITRE. A LOT


touche... touche... but we invented the internetz... we know what's best. right? riiiight?


You can check the network tab. WebAssembly doesn't have magic powers like ActiveX or something like that.


yeah, I checked the asm. using golang, imports some libs and is granted access to disk (sandbox). cool.


Is WebAssembly less trustworthy than minified/obfuscated JavaScript?

WebAssembly has no implicit access to browser APIs so I wouldn't think so.


Less experience in reading and de-obfuscating it.


What does it even mean lol. I really like how you implied that it's a problem of WebAssembly.

How is checking a web page's network connection, WebAssembly or not, harder than reading ALL the source code (if you don't read them all you can't be sure!) of a non-trivial app?


I was expecting something along the lines of pdf.js or something. WebAssembly was a shock, but I looked at the asm, saw golang, decompiled back to go and looked. all good. still... all it takes is an errant http.client call.


Isn't this true of basically every single program, in browser or not? If you're worried turn off network access


You can disable network requests using tools like ublock and violentmonkey.


It's interesting that they don't just supply the source code. Are they hoping if there's enough interest then they can turn this into a service? This type of functionality is great but I don't like the black box approach.

Edit: After some consideration, maybe they're worried that someone else would create a service using their work.


Open website > disable internet/wifi > perform your task and close tab


If the website is truly malicious it could store the data in localStorage and transfer it to their servers the next time you open the site


Very odd reason to pick on WebAssembly


Do you inspect the source of every webpage you visit, and every application you run?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: