ie8 fix
madison

Microsoft calls graphics technology in Chrome and Firefox "harmful"

By | June 17, 2011, 1:27pm PDT

In an unusually blunt statement, Microsoft has announced that it considers the Khronos Group’s WebGL graphics technology too dangerous to support in Windows.

Currently, both Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox are shipping with support for WebGL. Google calls it “the most powerful way to add 3D graphics to web pages” and encourages developers to “experiment with graphics programming.” Mozilla pitches WebGL as ideal for “interactive 3D games, vivid graphics and new visual experiences for the Web without the use of third-party plug-ins.”

Microsoft’s announcement, “WebGL Considered Harmful,” was published on the official blog of the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) and signed by MSRC Engineering. It was posted by swiat, which is short for Secure Windows Initiative Attack Team, the group that is responsible for the security architecture of Windows and other Microsoft products.

The statement comes on the heels of a pair of reports from Context Information Security that described “serious design flaws” and “security issues” in WebGL. The most recent post included a demonstration of how to steal user data through a web browser.

Microsoft threw all its security muscle behind some very strongly stated conclusions:

One of the functions of MSRC Engineering is to analyze various technologies in order to understand how they can potentially affect Microsoft products and customers. As part of this charter, we recently took a look at WebGL. Our analysis has led us to conclude that Microsoft products supporting WebGL would have difficulty passing Microsoft’s Security Development Lifecycle requirements.

[…]

We believe that WebGL will likely become an ongoing source of hard-to-fix vulnerabilities. In its current form, WebGL is not a technology Microsoft can endorse from a security perspective.

The report argues that browser support for WebGL “directly exposes hardware functionality to the web in a way that we consider to be overly permissive.” Graphics drivers can’t be depended on to uphold security guarantees, and there’s no workable security servicing model for video card drivers. Given the prevalence of attacks using third-party vulnerabilities (Adobe Flash files and Java apps, for example), that seems like a legitimate concern.

Microsoft also contends that the use of WebGL enables denial-of-service scenarios that would make it “possible for any web site to freeze or reboot systems at will.”

In an e-mailed statement, Ari Bixhorn of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer team took a direct swipe at its competition:

Customers need to understand that the security of their computers is at risk when they browse the web using Google Chrome and Firefox. Because these browsers support WebGL, they open a door for malicious websites to access one of the most secure parts of a person’s computer. With security holes like this, it’s clear that WebGL isn’t ready for primetime, and that people shouldn’t be using a browser that supports it. This is why the Microsoft Security Response Center recently recommended against the use of WebGL in Microsoft products like Internet Explorer.

In a response to other media outlets, Khronos Group downplays security concerns, suggesting that browser vendors are still working toward passing a WebGL conformance suite and that the demonstrated security issue is “due to a bug in Firefox’s WebGL implementation.” That bug is reportedly resolved in Firefox 5, which is due for release before the end of the month.

A Khronos Group spokesperson declined to respond directly to Microsoft’s report but noted that Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera all strongly support WebGL, and Apple has announced limited support for WebGL in iOS 5.

A Google spokesperson said the company doesn’t see WebGL as a significatn threat to its users. Many parts of the WebGL stack, including the GPU process, “run in separate processes and are sandboxed in Chrome to help prevent various kinds of attacks,” the spokesperson added. Google says it can ward off lower level attacks by working with hardware, OS, and driver vendors to disable WebGL on system configurations that are found to be unsafe.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

220
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft calls graphics technology in Chrome and Firefox
drumandyou 22nd Feb
@wendellgee@... Incredibly pleasant as well as valuable topic to read for every person. I furthermore propose you that http://nzedpills.com
Eustache
0 Votes
+ -
Too dumb to support as well
LBiege Updated - 17th Jun
This idea of computation-intensive tasks being done in a browser just doesn't pass the smoke test. If you need raw graphic power you should talk to the OS directly. Who needs a browser as the middle-man between your APPs and the OS?
@LBiege
I guess you're a proponent of a one OS world.
@wendellgee@... Or one standardized API? That's the point of OpenGL. It works on any OS, same API.
@wendellgee@... this has nothing to do with OS, Microsoft is talk about old video card drivers that will never receive a stability update, let along a security update, but still running at the kernel level. Take a look at FireFox's discussion on the decision of maintaining a video card driver white list and tell me you trust the authors of video card drivers handling your computer's kernel security. If a driver bug crashes the browser, the browser gets the blame. FireFox programmers learned the hard way.
Hence its a threat to you.... yeah right.

Google guarantees it is sandboxed...

If Google doesn't live up to this.. then they'll pay for it. If they do...MS is going to look silly... specially when you consider that MS Internet Explorer keeps on losing ground to Chrome.

If you look at w3schools.. browser stats.. you will see what the leading curve looks like. Internet Explorer is used by less than 26% of developers... that in itself sais a lot.

But you want to be six months to a year behind.. look at Wikipedia stats. MS averages 43% of the marketshare and loosing ground.
@Uralbas@...

"Google guarantees it is sandboxed..."

If the code is accessing hardware directly, if it is in fact able to directly access the kernel, how is that sandboxed?

Google can promise anything and everything.

However, when the technology it incorporates circumvents the possibility of being sandboxed by directly accessing hardware at the kernel level then regardless of where the rest of it's platform is residing there is no sandbox, it has been eliminated.
@wendellgee@... Incredibly pleasant as well as valuable topic to read for every person. I furthermore propose you that http://nzedpills.com
Eustache
0 Votes
+ -
The browser is the OS
Richard Flude 17th Jun
Well that's the plan, standardize the API. This is what MS feared back with Netscape.

Surprising MS would be so hard on this technology yet continue to support ActiveX.
0 Votes
+ -
@Richard Flude
Nor has Microsoft feared standardizing the API back with Netscape.
Though I am pondering what it is about Microsoft that scares you to post such obvious nonsense.
plain
0 Votes
+ -
Spock
Richard Flude 17th Jun
The DoJ fought a court case over the comment, resulting in billion paid by MS and a decade of antitrust oversight.

Yet in Spocks world it never happened.
@Richard Flude ... Psst, 2002 called and it wants its ActiveX-hate speech back. ActiveX hasn't been a significant threat since the pre-IE7 days, as the entire technology has gone through a significant revamp.

I'm not calling that tech or ANY tech perfect, just pointing out that it's not nearly as problematic as other technologies.
0 Votes
+ -
@GoodThings2Life .. who the h*ck ..
thx-1138_@... 17th Jun
... do you think your kidding? The old empty, baseless-defense, throw-away-line, trick:

"...I'm not calling that tech or ANY tech perfect, just pointing out that it's not nearly as problematic as other technologies."

Where is your research to back up your phoney claims that ActiveX is "not nearly as problematic as other technologies." Like Spock and other brown n0$ers like yourself, you seem to be awful quick to jump to the defense of MS - even in cases that are glaringly indefensible - and without a leg to stand on.

Like your fellow employee Ed Bott .. try to get a little perspective. This story is, at best, a pathetic case of 'the pot calling kettle black'.

You guys either deflect attention away from obvious negative findings about MS and make it sound like IE is now *somehow* 'the new paragon of browser security' - which it never has been nor is ever likely to be.

At any rate, does Redmond allow staffers like you to blog during work hours? .. Get back to work!
@Richard Flude Any monopoly (dominant market player) is going to try and protect that position. Given the massive slide in IE use despite it coming pre-installed with Windows, any further weakening is a real threat. Android, Chrome OS and Google's payment to Firefox for enabling it as default search engine must be terrifying MS. Firefox/Chrome as dominant browsers means the deal with Google on search could be an anti-trust issue.

A *lot* of people are still on IE6. Look at the mad scramble to improve IE with 7 and 8 after massive complacency and appreciate why competition is important. Any end user that thinks pressure on MS is not a good thing is a turkey voting for Christmas. Google is a lot more friendly to end-users because its business model is largely business to business advertising. Firefox is a community project. But there are still potential anti-trust issues there too.
@Richard Flude

Oh yeah, Netscape, I almost forgot about the most loathed browser every created!

They certainly did want standards, only their standards, their way, under their terms, only as they desired, ... you get the picture.

Netscape was no more about standards than MS is or was.

In fact, MS is more about standards as they have been using the same LDAP adaptation for years, the same Exchange API for years, the same evolving .NET for years, and the same evolving DirectX for years.

MS doesn't change these API's (errr standards), other than to update them.

My favorite browser, Netscape 4.7, what a beast.
From the time Microsoft released IE4 in 1997, ActiveX has been well documented as creating some horrible vulnerabilities, and Microsoft's solution - get injunctions against publishing this information.

Mozilla publishes their source code, encourages peer review, and encourages people to report and publish concerns about vulnerabilities, even if they are merely theoretical - and fixes them even if they can never be exploited.

Microsoft considers publication of security vulnerability information, and root cause analysis, especially to security agencies like CERN to be a violation of the "Reverse Engineering" clause of their End User License Agreements, and has been known to sick the legal department on anyone who dares to attempt to publish such information.

Internationally, some countries, such as Germany, permit publication of such information, but that protection only extends to content published in German.

No accident that Microsoft has spend nearly 20 years trying to fix known security holes - such as the FAT file system file sharing and Active X controls - while promoting them as strategic features - by not fixing them, and just putting band-aids around them.

Microsoft wants the ability to see any file on your computer, at any time, whether you want them to or not, and tools like ActiveX and DirectX give them this access.
@Rex1Ballard

MS has not spent 20 years trying to undo vulnerabilities in products. IE4 is as closely related to IE7,8, and 9 as a sea monkey is to a dolphin.

MS not wanting to syndicate technical information that could absolutely be used to reverse engineer the inner operations of the OS that the company has invested billions into (billions of dollars from a huge array of global investors), why would they want to afford anyone the ability to see the inside of their intellectual property.

And how is that any different in terms of strategy and protectionism of their IP then Apple shutting down competitors that builder lower cost hardware to run the mighty Apple OS?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

A EULA is a EULA is a EULA.

Apple does not expose it's OS. HP does not expose it's Unix. Sony doesn't expose it's PS OS. Why should MS do that?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

Stop being a dork.
@Richard Flude ActiveX is not relevant. First, it's disabled by default, now it works just the same as any plug-in API for Firefox or other browser. Every browser can run native code when you install a browser plug-in.

Secondly, this is about PREVENTING another API that's going to require constant patching and update. Allowing javascript to upload code to the graphic card, by-passing the OS, is not something to take lightly. The security concerns have been documented by a third party http://www.contextis.com/resources/blog/webgl2/
@Richard Flude

I have to support Richard on this thread. @Spock, he is not talking nonsense. Microsoft started the browser incompatibility wars and probably would not have ended if the DoJ and others had not stepped in. There can be no question that Microsoft made deliberate attempts to undermine Java, JavaScript and other web technologies to undermine the technology of their competition at the expense of consumers - otherwise they would not have lost in litigation.

Today IE 9 is amazingly compliant with W3 standards because Microsoft lost the war as a consequence of successful litigation and declining market share. Now the consumer is the winner.
@LBiege I'm inclined to agree with you.
@LBiege I have to agree with that.
@LBiege I doubt browser makers will want users to do computation-intensive tasks and/or graphics-intensive tasks in the browser; more likely they intend users to be able to do moderate computational tasks and moderate graphics tasks. happy
@CaseyHaw

Tell that to the Chrome / HTML5 nut jobs.

They think that the cloud, the browser with HTML5 will do everything.
@LBiege
Then why do you need a huge resource hungry monster called .NET (or Java) to sit between your app and the OS either?
0 Votes
+ -
For G-stuff there's direct-X. You are barking at the wrong tree.
@iRMX

"Then why do you need a huge resource hungry monster called .NET (or Java) to sit between your app and the OS either? "

You make no sense.

First of all, .NET is a framework that programmers can use. Get that? Can use.

I cannot begin to tell you how many applications, client side and server applications, that are incredibly brittle because they don't use a framework. .NET provides a fantastic framework for programmers that they can rely on.

When developers port their software from the more traditional direct access coding styles to leveraging frameworks such as .NET, you get a more scalable and upgradable (and easier to support) solution.

.NET doesn't prevent programmers from being stupid, or if it is necessary writing code outside the framework, it just makes life easier for the programmer.

JavaScript, who likes it?

jQuery, who likes it? Most web developers love it.

PHP, easy enough to learn, right?

Zend, Cake, Yii, ZooP and others make PHP easier to develop (or faster in any event).
@LBiege M$ is just POed cause someone beat then to the draw on this one
@Par-Pro Please tell you're not stupid enough to believe that BS! Even if you are, WebGL has not beaten Microsoft to the draw. In fact, they aren't even close.
@LBiege
Funny.. I remember people in the industry once saying the same thing about an OS in the way between you and the hardware...
@LBiege anyone who wants cross platform apps.
0 Votes
+ -
Portability
cameigons Updated - 18th Jun
@LBiege Portability. That's the reason. And, regardless of being a good thing(I think it is) or not, it is bound to happen be it now or later.
@jiangsheng

jiangsheng, what in the world are you talking about? The fact is that even Intel graphics chips have driver updates. Nvidia laptop graphics cards have updates.
So do ATI laptop graphics cards.
Same thing for the desktop versions of the two directly above.

EVERYTHING has updates to it. Whether the average stupid computer user will be smart/savvy enough to get those updates is ANOTHER question, easily solved by Microsoft helping them push out graphics driver updates.
@Lerianis10 Not everything. You forget that graphic cards outlive their driver support by a wide margin. Besides, here is a comment about the frequent updates: ?One of my friends used to lead one of HP's workstation graphics QA teams... NVidia especially would send absolute crap?
0 Votes
+ -
timeline
bjmoz 17th Jun
"The statement comes on the heels of a report from Context Information Security, published earlier this week"

That's an euphemism: it was published on the same day (june 16), apparently 2 hours before.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Not a euphemism
Ed Bott 17th Jun
@bjmoz

A mistake on my part. I misread the date stamp, which used an odd font where the 6 (in 16) looked like a 4. I've removed the date reference in my post. Thanks.
@Ed Bott

You have to admit Ed that thats pretty suspicious timing... yes? Like maybe these *aren't* as independent as your original report might lead people to believe?
@Ed Bott
Security Now podcast had the problems with WebGL in Firefox about a month ago.

All the WebGL browsers on my machines have WebGL disabled.

The whole concept is flawed, from what I've heard and read. The WebGL team needs to go back to the drawing board and rethink how they want to do this.

Apple are probably in the best position here, as they control the hardware and the software, so they could implement WebGL *and* ensure the drivers are security certified, although given their current attitude to security, I wouldn't count on it.

Linux will have the most problems, because it still isn't taken seriously by many hardware vendors, who invest heavily on Windows and Apple platforms, but seem to think getting 3D running, at all, on Linux is a nice-to-have, once all other tasks have been done.

Given the constant glitching from my ATi cards under Linux, I wouldn't want to trust the drivers with WebGL.

Microsoft are in a slightly better position, while the Windows drivers have the highest priority, but given the speed that AMD and nVidia react to known problems in their drivers - and their attitude to notebook chipsets, where they tell you to go to the manufacturer's website, and if the manufacturer can't be bothered to release a new driver with bug fixes, tough (at least until recently) - I wouldn't want to trust them with making sure their drivers are secure against WebGL.
0 Votes
+ -
Firefox 5
sackbut 17th Jun
They haven't even gotten Firefox 4 right. It sucks big time.
@sackbut

FF 4 suddenly changing the date format you get when you do
var d = new Date;
d.toString();

was not a professional nor backwards compatible move... it broke existing code in several apps.
@ggibson1 no way, are you kidding?

I don't do much client side work, in fact I do none, but that is some pretty basic javascript or whatever Microsoft calls it.
Harmful to their failing business model.
@timspublic1@... happy
@SoYouSaid So???

Who cares what a paid Microsoft advertizer says anyway?
  • Flagged
@YetAnotherBob Who cares what an irrational, Microsoft-hating idot like you says?
  • Flagged
@JoeHTH only a pwned Redmond-owned tool jerk like you would care, so stuff it.
@timspublic1@... LOL! Yeah, their business model is failing. They only sold 350 million Windows 7 license in 18 month, the highest selling Windows ever. It will probably be at 500 million by the time Windows 8 launches, at least. You know how long it would take for Apple to sell 350 million OS X license?

You might want to check their booming Xbox business, Xbox Live, Kinect(fastest selling consumer tech in history), Exchange, Live Messenger, Bing's growing market share, and the massively successful Office.

Yeah, that's a failing business model.
Yea, pre-installed on 99% of the computers sold out there without any active consumer choice. They just take what's given to them. I'd say the OEMs are complete tools of the Redmond Borg collective.

And now with DoJ not even half-a$$ed looking at them anymore, expect even less choice and the IE browser to be built right back into the OS where it used to be.
Having work for a company that had to interface with MS they have the "Not Invented Here" sydrome. Plus why do we have MS Fix Tues every month.
@oemtech

"We' don't. We do have security updates on Microsoft patch Tuesday. Occassionally (rarely) this includes an application update.
We also get updates from Apple and Linux ... though I do wish they would deliver on a schedule so we could plan accordingly.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix