zlacker

What exactly does it do for me as a user?

>>Camper+(OP)
It’s a security boundary. It lets you control the resources an application has access to. For example, if that cool weather app you just installed asks for access to your Documents directory, or your camera or microphone, you can say no.

>>cridde+o3
I see, it lets me install random .EXEs from sketchy web sites on my Windows machine without having to worry. Sounds safe.

>>Camper+14
Whats your point? You just ran a bunch of untrusted code when you visitied this website.

>>iknows+N7
Untrusted code running in a well-defined and maintained sandbox.

>>iknows+N7
Running a native binary in an environment with a large attack space and user level permissions is not NEARLY the same as running javascript in a browser with all of its sandboxing, isolation, and controls. And you know it.

>>EvanAn+bb
Yes and....

>>EvanAn+bb
Still stuff manages to escape constantly

You can find exploits on gh for older chromium versions easily

>>hardwa+eZ1
Even so it's disingenuous to compare running native code in an OS w/o a capabilities model to running Javascript in a browser.

>>pauldd+gt1
Visiting a website and running Javascript vs. running a native application aren't equivalent. Browser sandbox exploits are "a thing" but that doesn't make the situations the same.

>>EvanAn+FU2
Yes and WASM can be sandboxed just as easily as JavaScript.

There is nothing "magical" about web browsers in that regard.

>>pauldd+ue3
I don’t follow where you’re going.

I didn’t say there was anything “magical” about browsers. They have a sandbox for JavaScript, by default. Windows doesn’t have a sandbox for native apps, by default.

A parent poster seemed to be making a statement of equivalency between running a native application in Windows and running JavaScript in a browser. I don’t think they’re equivalent.

That’s what I’m saying.

>>EvanAn+vm3
We are literally talking about an environment for running Win32 apps in a sandbox