And BTW, this is why WebAssembly runtime on the server is a big deal. Being able to painlessly run any untrusted code from "nonsafe language" in a sandboxed environment.
Also, if you read it correctly, Avast is running "wild" Javascript in a custom privileged VM (potentially written in C++)
Contrast this with tailor-made, slim and well tested C++ code. And yes, I do expect security companies to have well-written and well-tested code.
Your expectation makes no sense, given the vulnerabilities we've seen in AV software in the past decade.
If they insist that executing suspect JS is a good idea, they a) probably should use an established interpreter unless there's good reasons not to and b) not run it privileged.
EDIT: Avast appears to have deactivated this now: https://twitter.com/avast_antivirus/status/12376853435807539...
Therefore when you see an exposed unsandboxed VM, you instantly know it's critical issue.
No, not really? Depending on the browser they have generally have a small-to-medium attack surface. Yes, they can JIT, but often they can't do much else.
> and are prime candidates for gray and black market vulnerability hunts
Because they are remotely exploitable, nothing more.
> They are often not maintained
The world's deepest pockets and countless hours from the world's smartest minds go into maintaining them…
> once a vulnerability is discovered, the entire app is compromised
Not in modern browsers.
> In the case of a highly-privileged process
Oh good, so not the JavaScript process, right?
I meant maintained by app developers who include the runtimes, not the runtimes themselves.
Significantly fewer than you'd find in a comparable C++ application, probably, and with much less effort put into securing things like "if I index into this array am I allowing for an arbitrary write primitive" and "can I safety use this object without giving an attacker code execution". Electron bugs tend to be of the sort like "oops, we can load a file from the filesystem because we forgot a string check", and C++ bugs are "that, but with the other things I just mentioned".
Based on what? On C++ you have complex systems with difficult code to get correctly. With Electron, you have terrible chat apps that take 1GB of memory to display a few chat bubbles that allow remote execution into machines running them.
The data to compare the two is just not there to assume anything like you just did. Meanwhile, electron apps have proven quite insecure, despite not being able to allow arbitrary write primitive by indexing into an array.
The V8 engine, in 2020, is one of the most actively-maintained software projects of any kind. And (for better or worse) nearly everyone who needs a JS engine uses that one. This includes - among others - Chrome, NodeJS (which means Electron too), and now Edge. The only major outliers I can think of are JavaScriptCore (iOS/Safari) and SpiderMonkey (Firefox).
The sin committed by Avast was rolling their own version of something, as a less-than-massive-company, when the state-of-the-art implementation is OSS. That has nothing to do with JavaScript the language. You're commenting on things you clearly know nothing about.