-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 46
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[wg/audio] Audio Group Charter #470
Comments
|
no comment or request from i18n |
no comment or request from APA. |
@simoneonofri any comments from a security perspective? |
I have read the security consideration sections, which seem well-reasoned. A further security consideration is that the element could be used to make the browser process a file with a format that contains an attack on the libraries to then encode/decode the file. For instance:
|
@simoneonofri Thanks for your feedback! However, vulnerabilities on VLC and potential cross-origin-read issues are related to the AudioElement, which is not under the Audio WG's purview. See https://www.w3.org/2022/02/audio-2022.html. Regarding the OOM crash problem, do you believe it is a security issue? In terms of the functionality of API, the WG believes the WebCodec is the right solution for such use case. See WebAudio/web-audio-api#2321 (comment). |
You're welcome @hoch
Thank you for clarifying the scope. I understood it as an 'input' element where potentially malicious date streams could be received.
It depends on the reason for the crash. If it is for a memory allocation problem, it is possible. About the specific issue, the expected behavior can be to "fail securely," often, when there is a malformed input, discarding it is an option; alternatively, it can be sanitized, but this may be complex/risky. |
First, to clarify the scope of the question I assume you're referring to In Chromium, it is safe to crash on OOM and IMO it does not pose a security problem. Do we believe this is somehow documented in the spec? I thought this is more of an implementation issue. |
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
@simoneonofri if you are now satisfied, please mark the security review as completed @plh any additional comment from PING? |
No objection from PING to the charter |
considering change around proposed recommendation, first sentence in success criteria as |
The charter template was only updated last week but yes it would be better to fold in that change. |
The charter has been updated to fold in that change |
New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.
Charter Review
Charter:
diff from previous charter
diff from template
What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.
Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, security, and TAG. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.
Communities suggested for outreach: Audio CG
Known or potential areas of concern: none
Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? GitHub
Anything else we should think about as we review?
Note: proposed chairs should be copied @... on this issue.
@hoch @mdjp
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: