wasm is enabled by default

Board for discussions around the Basilisk web browser.

Moderator: Basilisk-Dev

Zenufaso

wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-21, 20:17

Hello.
As I understand Basilisk browser is positioned as a secure browser and removes unnecessary code from it.
But I noticed that wasm functionality is enabled by default. Which is also supposed to be removed at code level.
The following options are set to true.
javascript.options.wasm
javascript.options.wasm_baselinejit
javascript.options.asmjs

Why did you leave wasm?
Thanks.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-05-22, 01:16

I don't know where you get the idea it's supposed to be disabled or not built at all. Because of fairly widespread use of WASM, it's also necessary for the current web.
Our implementation of WASM has been evaluated thoroughly for security issues and found safe to have enabled.
Effectively it's no less secure than standard JavaScript -- in fact even more so because its code is a very limited subset of JS.
I don't particularly like the technology at a personal level, but this is where we are.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Zenufaso

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-22, 13:23

A bit of philosophy and reflection:

As everyone knows, wasm allows you to run binary code in your browser.

What is a browser is a program designed to browse sites, hypertext documents on the Internet.
The browser was originally designed to view html files/pages.

What is an operating system is an environment where other programs run. It is the environment where binary programs run.

As you can see there is a clear purpose for the browser and the operating system, each has its own task.

The browser is now being turned into an operating system, which brings its own security problems.
If I need to execute a binary code (program), I will run the program on windows/linux, if I need to open html (javascript) page, I will open it through the browser.
I think it's wrong to put operating system functionality into a browser, it's fundamentally wrong.

I think the reason you did your Basilisk (Firefox) browser build is to improve browser security.

I'm more than sure that this functionality is abused through WASM, since the binary allows you to hide the real code of the program from users.
WASM is the first thing you should disable in your browser. And it is desirable to remove the wasm code itself from the browser.

I am planning to make my own build of firefox, with removal of many features, such as: wasm, webrtc, camera access, microphone, usb, device.sensors, dom.netinfo, dom.network, autoUpdate, telemetry and more at code level.
But I don't have time for everything right now, so I'm putting it off.

WASM is I very dangerous functionality for the browser. Speaking as a programmer and sysadmin.

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-05-22, 14:45

Well you're wrong. HOWEVER, regardless of other opinions and speculations on motives and intent and various reasons true and imagined.. Why don't you.. and this might be a novel concept.. simply flip javascript.options.wasm to false if you want it to be disabled?

OH but then you can't get on your high horse and tell Moonchild why he created Basilisk and made the decisions he did that you agree with and why he should change those you don't. No you want to get all whimsical and philosophical and prove just how smart and enlightened of a programmer and very important administrator you are while not saying anything more than "I don't like it and because I don't like it you should be change it or you are betraying your principles and are a bad bad man". Give me a break.. Just deal with it or do something about it but no matter WHICH you end up doing.. Don't forget to piss off.
Last edited by New Tobin Paradigm on 2021-05-22, 14:55, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-05-22, 14:53

Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 13:23
As everyone knows, wasm allows you to run binary code in your browser.
If you translate that to "any binary code" or fully compiled programs, then you are very much mistaken.
WASM is bytecode. It is a specific binary representation of a specific set of functions. It is limited to what the asm.js subset offers, and it is limited to the protected content context it is set to run in.

If you have a problem with that, then you should also have a problem with JavaScript and any other "active" content that is in web pages; the only real difference is that WASM delivers the content in a bytecode format instead of scripting that can potentially be inspected (although with current day minification and obfuscation, it's on the same level of machine-readable-only content).

While your philosophy discussion is an interesting take and in broad strokes I agree that a browser should not be abused for "web application" use, that is what we are dealing with in current web terms and what a browser must support. WASM delivers this functionality in a very similar way to JS with the difference that it's also offering a transpiling shortcut by translating to bytecode directly from other source programming languages. As said though, what can be done with it falls squarely within the restrictions of the WASM API and no arbitrary code can be executed outside of that.

But if you don't want it, you have the option to simply disable it.
Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 13:23
I think the reason you did your Basilisk (Firefox) browser build is to improve browser security.
Not really, no. Basilisk is a potential Firefox alternative building on UXP and it was created initially as a development vessel for the platform by exercising parts of the platform explicitly excluded in Pale Moon. While security-aware development is important, and takes priority, as you can see above WASM has been looked at in detail and considered important to have and does not impact the browser's security.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Zenufaso

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-22, 16:16

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2021-05-22, 14:45
simply flip javascript.options.wasm to false if you want it to be disabled?
Yes, that's what I do. Only I have already stopped believing that the variables I have set will retain their value. Therefore, I plan to cut the code from source.
Moonchild wrote:
2021-05-22, 14:53
Not really, no. Basilisk is a potential Firefox alternative building on UXP
Ok, then I got it wrong with the browser, thinking that you want to make a really secure browser to work.

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2021-05-22, 14:45
OH but then you can't get on your high horse
I signed up anonymously just to help make the browser better, on the assumption that the browser is positioned as secure.
Then I make two assumptions:
1) You don't understand the danger of WASM
2) or you understand the danger of WASM and deliberately do not disable WASM in order to exploit the vulnerabilities. (analogy - you collaborate with PRISM)

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-05-22, 16:58

The only way a user set pref could be reset is if we disabled it then as the user pref is the same as the default it would be cleared then turned around and enabled it again OR if we did it explicitly through code. Since obviously for web compatibility reasons we have to choose a default that will serve as many users out of the box as possible.. Any change to the default would be mentioned on various release notes and very likely the platform change log because if there is a reason to change it to disabled it would be a reason to do it across the board. You would then be properly informed if we subsequently re-enabled it again.

I am telling you this not only because it is technologically fact but to show you that we are up front about shit. For you to assume we would pull something underhanded is a personal insult. That you would make a series of assumptions and present them as fact while hiding your identity is arrogant presumption of the highest order with a big helping of cowardice.

You must really be a really piss poor scriptkiddy and digital ocean droplet "admin" to even think your attempts to cast us as you have would have any chance of success. You need to get your facts str8 and keep your incoherent implications to yourself and take a very long walk off a short pier cause either way.. You're in way over your head and in some mighty hot water around these parts indeed.

You are dismissed.

OH, I almost forgot...

RESOLVED INVALID

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-05-22, 17:13

Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 16:16
Then I make two assumptions:
You should re-evaluate the procedure through which you decide on assumptions to make, because it's clearly flawed.
Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 16:16
You don't understand the danger of WASM
On the contrary. But it is clear you don't understand the nature of bytecode, the safeguards surrounding WASM, or the context in which it executes.
I suggest you do some more research into exactly what WASM is and more prudently what it is not.
Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 16:16
or you understand the danger of WASM and deliberately do not disable WASM in order to exploit the vulnerabilities.
I could take this personally but I do not. I make an assumption instead countering yours: you are uninformed or misinformed (or a bit of both).
By all means, point out where we exploit WASM, and how. And do point out any vulnerabilities with our WASM implementation that could lead to exploits beyond the level possible otherwise, if you can. I'll be happy to hear about it so countermeasures can be taken. And be specific -- we can't do anything with vague claims that aren't backed by fact.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Zenufaso

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-22, 19:07

I only wanted to help improve the browser, assuming that the browser is positioned as safe, but I was wrong.

Yes, you're right, I don't know in detail how WASM works in browsers (firefox). But I know on a lab level what assembler is and just read a lot about assembler features and how functional it is.

I recently started having paranormal phenomena in browsers, tabs on google site, youtube, oculus (facebook) are dropping. And recently, after a comment on YouTube, my account was put into protected mode and I could not read comments on many videos. And this restriction applied to all browsers in windows 10, even with the new profile. I checked on Vivaldi, opera, firefox. This confirms that the functionality of browsers is already much more than it seems. I don't know exactly how it was done, but after that I changed windows to qubesOs, browsers and a lot of other software.

Even on a smartphone with LineageOS on the fennec browser from the f-droid repository, I get http requests from the root user. Through the firewall I detect these requests.
The browsers are intentionally loosening the security for backdoors.

You can read more about it here, although I think you're already familiar with it.
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprie ... urity.html
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-webpages.html
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html
and other information on this site

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-05-22, 23:26

Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 19:07
I only wanted to help improve the browser, assuming that the browser is positioned as safe, but I was wrong.
Look, I appreciate your intent but you've obviously been misled as to what role WASM plays or how safe or unsafe it is. WebAssembly, despite its name, has nothing at all to do with Assembly language as a programming language, and you cannot compare them in terms of what kind of program access you get through them.
By extension, you've accused us of not having the browser's safety or security at heart (which you continue to maintain even here) so yes, we do take that personally, because nothing is less true. Please don't blame us for that response.

The rest of your post is completely irrelevant to the topic so I'll ignore it and just leave you with this thought: If you think that Basilisk has a backdoor, then by all means, feel free to audit the source code for it. You will find none. If you don't trust our binaries and think they have backdoors not evident in the source then by all means, build your own from source (and feel free to make a binary comparison, or disassemble our binaries, or what not you feel is necessary) to ensure your trust that what we release is safe and secure. Aside from that no web client has control over how server operators treat your accounts on their systems.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Zenufaso

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-23, 08:31

No, I'm not accusing Basilisk browser of backdoors, I'm suggesting that all popular browsers have deliberate vulnerabilities. Firefox is one of them. And since Basilisk is based on firefox, these vulnerabilities automatically carry over to Basilisk as well. That's why I wanted to help :)
Sorry, if I offended :)

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-05-23, 08:41

I don't see any pull requests or explaination of vulnerabilities.. All I see is misinformed crying about a great many things you don't understand while shitting on us just citing yet another variation of old and insecure Firefox meme. The twist being that this is about Basilisk and we are in cahoots with deep state or big tech or if not then we are just useful idiots or some shit.

Don't try to backtrack on what you have directly accused us of. Unlike Moonchild, I will not simply ignore it nor will I forget what you have done here.. let alone forgive. So put up or shut up cause thus far it seems you have no start to your talents.

I have only one last word of recommendation:
Ȇ̸̞̬̘͉̲͙͂̒͗̑̅̀̾̚X̴̠̙̪̯̗͌͜-̸͓̊͗͛̇̿̈̋͘͠͝T̵̙͇̥̆͑͋È̷̼R̸̡͓̥͕̪͎͌̾͐̒͘͠-̵͉̫̤̫̬͔̀̓́̊͌̂̋͠M̸̛̪̱̫͍̫̭̗̳̚Ì̴̢̜̹̰̜͇̂͗̌̿͠͝N̷̮̘͐͂̍̇̀̊̕͝-̵̡̢̜̳̦͕̠̜̟͈̓̽̅̃͘̕͠A̵̜͎̼̬̭̻̟͋̓̋́͂͜T̵̨͔̎͐͝E̷̛̖̮̍̾̾̓̾̈́̿̚

User avatar
athenian200
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1498
Joined: 2018-10-28, 19:56
Location: Georgia

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by athenian200 » 2021-05-23, 10:33

Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-22, 13:23
A bit of philosophy and reflection:

As everyone knows, wasm allows you to run binary code in your browser.
Well, binary code running in a sandbox in a browser isn't a new concept. Do you know what libffi is and why it's in our codebase? From their website,

"FFI stands for Foreign Function Interface. A foreign function interface is the popular name for the interface that allows code written in one language to call code written in another language. The libffi library really only provides the lowest, machine dependent layer of a fully featured foreign function interface. A layer must exist above libffi that handles type conversions for values passed between the two languages."


While JavaScript was originally an interpreted language, things have changed a lot since then. JavaScript engines achieve usable speed by essentially converting JavaScript into low-level code using a foreign function interface. There is a lot of sandboxing around it, and there is an attempt to limit which instructions it can be parsed into to avoid having it be dangerous. This library has been in many browsers for almost a decade now.

All WebAssembly does is allow you to compile other languages into the same kind of bytecode JavaScript is already using. It doesn't do anything differently beyond that, and that's why wasm is generally considered part of the JavaScript engine for organizational purposes. We already have a foreign function interface to some kind of bytecode running in a sandbox, we're just letting other languages make use of it besides JavaScript. So now if I wanted to write a web application in C, I could theoretically do that using WebAssembly.
What is a browser is a program designed to browse sites, hypertext documents on the Internet.
The browser was originally designed to view html files/pages.
Yes, it was. A long, long time ago. While no one is going to take away your HTML 4.01 pages, or your copy of Netscape Navigator, or try to stop you from using them on your intranet... the world has moved on. I'm not saying it's all good, or that you have to be okay with it, but it just has whether you like it or not.
What is an operating system is an environment where other programs run. It is the environment where binary programs run.

As you can see there is a clear purpose for the browser and the operating system, each has its own task.
Well, that was true in 2001, but it's no longer true in 2021. There's no easy way to have that kind of nice, neat division when most of the data people want to access is stored remotely, and they want to access a shared experience mediated by a single service with its own features and interface. Even this forum is an example. It's performing tasks like a word processor to let me write this post, and it's performing tasks like an e-mail client by letting me send it along with private messages. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. The only alternative would be for each website to make you download a customized application. So you'd have a Facebook application, a Twitter application, a YouTube application, etc... you might recognize that early smartphones took this approach, but on the PC we went this way instead. Are you arguing that you'd rather we all use dedicated service applications like on smartphones rather than have a web browser serve as a generalized platform? I'm not sure how that would make things better, personally.
The browser is now being turned into an operating system, which brings its own security problems.
If I need to execute a binary code (program), I will run the program on windows/linux, if I need to open html (javascript) page, I will open it through the browser.
I think it's wrong to put operating system functionality into a browser, it's fundamentally wrong.
Okay, but what if you open something like Discord on Windows? It's essentially just running a web application inside of a trimmed-down version of Chromium. Compare the website version to the standalone application... there's almost no difference, and that's because it is the exact same program. And what if someone writes a very complex web application in JavaScript? That's not a theoretical or rhetorical question, that is in fact what people have been doing... writing entire applications in Javascript, with a little bit of HTML and CSS thrown in for presentation. Are you familiar at all with asm.js? That's really not much different from what wasm does.

By opposing WebAssembly, you are essentially ONLY opposing the use of programming languages other than JavaScript for creating web applications, not the creation of web applications itself. That horse is not only dead, all the flesh has rotted off and you're drumming on bones. I think the only people with a reason to oppose that would be a trade union of JavaScript programmers trying to protect their jobs from other programmers.
I think the reason you did your Basilisk (Firefox) browser build is to improve browser security.
Security can't come at the expense of functionality. You can set a firewall to block all incoming traffic, and your network will be 100% secure. But at that point you might as well just stop paying your ISP. Your proposal would be like that... making the browser more secure by making it mostly useless for modern websites that are designed around this feature.
I'm more than sure that this functionality is abused through WASM, since the binary allows you to hide the real code of the program from users.
Well, you may not be able to see the high level code that was used to generate wasm instructions, but you can certainly take the wasm code and run it through something like this:

https://webassembly.org/getting-started/advanced-tools/

Getting a textual representation of the instructions being given to wasm. So it's not true that users can't see the code of the program. You'll notice that S-expressions are not assembly language, by the way. It's similar in concept, because it's something closer to bare metal than the high-level language it was generated from, but it's definitely a kind of machine within a machine. Encapsulated, sandboxed, etc.

Besides, websites already hide the code of what they're doing on the backend from you, anyway.
WASM is I very dangerous functionality for the browser. Speaking as a programmer and sysadmin.
Maybe so, but you could make the same argument for JavaScript and many other web technologies that are commonly used. Your arguments are decades too late. Heck, it's not that different from the idea behind Java itself. I get what you mean, but yeah... unless they scrap the whole Internet and repudiate the last 20 years as a mistake, we're stuck with this mess. You don't have to like it.
"The Athenians, however, represent the unity of these opposites; in them, mind or spirit has emerged from the Theban subjectivity without losing itself in the Spartan objectivity of ethical life. With the Athenians, the rights of the State and of the individual found as perfect a union as was possible at all at the level of the Greek spirit." -- Hegel's philosophy of Mind

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-05-23, 10:41

Zenufaso wrote:
2021-05-23, 08:31
I'm suggesting that all popular browsers have deliberate vulnerabilities.
And since Basilisk is based on firefox, these vulnerabilities automatically carry over to Basilisk as well. That's why I wanted to help :)
Really now? So now it has gone from WASM to claiming all browsers have deliberate vulnerabilities?

You're becoming less believable by the second. If you are convinced about Basilisk being unsafe or insecure because of inherited "deliberate vulnerabilities" then I have one request: list them. Tell us exactly what deliberate vulnerabilities exist in every popular browser, and in particular Firefox that you say we inherited this deliberate backdoor from (because indirectly you are still saying Basilisk has one, contradicting yourself).
Crying about some alleged vulnerability without providing details isn't helping us. Tell us what vulnerabilities you are aware of, for starters. That is the first step in solving them (if they exist). If you can't then please just admit you were wrong to come on to us like you did and go back and do some investigative research before coming back with something we can work with -- otherwise Tobin is absolutely right in that this is just another unfounded cry that we're supposedly "insecure".
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-05-23, 10:47

Security is not an absolute it is a spectrum and security management is simply active risk management like opening a circuit breaker box or your car hood or starting up your lawnmower or walking across a street.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Moonchild » 2021-05-23, 10:52

New Tobin Paradigm wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:47
Security is not an absolute
Of course but OP is claiming I -will- get hit by that bus if I cross the street when one is coming because of a deliberately bad stop light.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-05-23, 12:27

People have been trying to run you down with buses since late 2013. You'll be fine and so will nearly everyone else. Doesn't mean we have to remove every bus just because one person is too scared to cross the road.

Zenufaso

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-23, 18:09

athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
binary code running in a sandbox in a browser
My paranoia says you can't trust sandboxes.
VirtualBox Guest-to-Host - https://player.vimeo.com/video/299325088/
VMware Guest-to-Host - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDuWcGn5hTQ
athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
Are you arguing that you'd rather we all use dedicated service applications like on smartphones rather than have a web browser serve as a generalized platform?
athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
what if someone writes a very complex web application in JavaScript?
No, that's a separate conversation about javascript.
I started the discussion only about WASM. Because it hides code, unlike javascript.
Example I record all http/https traffic. In case of suspicion, I review the traffic/scripts.
With wasm I won't be able to analyze the code.
athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
Are you familiar at all with asm.js? That's really not much different from what wasm does.
Yes, asm.js scares me too. I disable it in the browser, just like wasm.
Asm.js and wasm are a black box.
athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
By opposing WebAssembly, you are essentially ONLY opposing the use of programming languages other than JavaScript for creating web applications, not the creation of web applications itself.
Yeah, I don't like the black box.
There are enough black boxes in the form of proprietary applications. Adding proprietary app functionality to the browser is overkill. It's unnecessary.
athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
You can set a firewall to block all incoming traffic, and your network will be 100% secure.
Big topic of conversation.
I recently stopped using windows and switched to qubesOS.
A bit later I found out that my intel i7-4770k processor has Intel Management Engine (Intel ME) which runs its OS independently of the installed
Zammit stresses that the ME has full access to memory (without the owner-controlled CPU cores having any knowledge), and has full access to the TCP/IP stack and can send and receive network packets independently of the operating system, thus bypassing its firewall.
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is ... -backdoor/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
athenian200 wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:33
Your arguments are decades too late.
Yes, I just recently learned about wasm and asm.js.

Zenufaso

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by Zenufaso » 2021-05-23, 20:18

Moonchild wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:41
So now it has gone from WASM to claiming all browsers have deliberate vulnerabilities?
this is PRISM

After I wrote this message, I switched to other tabs. When I returned to that tab 10 minutes later, I found that the tab with the underprinted message had dropped.
Coincidence? (Qubes os, firefox with custom user.js and many options disabled)
Moonchild wrote:
2021-05-23, 10:41
Tell us what vulnerabilities you are aware of, for starters.
I haven't investigated the browser for vulnerabilities, but I'm finding a lot of paranormal things with the browser.
As I described above in my post - I have recorded in the NetGuard firewall on my smartphone an https request from the root user when using the browser.
Screenshot root connect:
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/5dSjft5sUM3qCw
https://disk.yandex.ru/i/uiqROVAXA0JRig

I asked the technical support of these two domains - whether they have DNS over http, and they said that these domains DNS services do not.

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: wasm is enabled by default

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-05-23, 20:32

So you're a literal loony? paranormal.. what the actual fuck.

Locked