Abstract :

Web Assembly (Wasm) and blockchain technology offer a viable solution for reliable and high-performance front-end systems. Wasm provides high execution speeds by incorporating code from high-level languages to improvise on performance limitations. Its sand-boxed execution model enhances security by extenuating memory-related weaknesses. Similarly, blockchain reinforces security with decentralized, tamper-resistant data structures and smart contracts. Conventional blockchain frameworks often suffer from computational overhead, but Wasm-based execution platforms like Polkadot and EOS optimize resource utilization and improve interoperability. This integration facilitates high-speed, reliable interactions in decentralized applications (dApps). Potential benefits include fast and secure off-chain computations, hence reducing blockchain congestion in front-end frameworks. However, challenges remain in securing Wasm execution in decentralized environments and optimizing blockchain and Wasm interoperability. A promising direction is to exploit Just-In-Time (JIT), Ahead-of-Time (AOT) compilation schemes along with zero-knowledge proofs to further enhance performance and security characteristics. By coupling Wasm’s efficiency with blockchain’s security, scalable and decentralized front-end systems are evolving to meet challenging web demand scenarios.

---

Keywords :

Blockchain, Cryptography, dApps, Just in time, Web assembly, Zero knowledge proofs.

---

References :

1. Haas, A., Rossberg, A., Schuff, D., Titzer, B. L., Holman, M., Gohman, D. & Wagner, L. 2017. Bringing the web up to speed with WebAssembly. 38th ACM SIGPLAN Conf. Prog. Lang. Des. Implement., 185-200.
2. Jangda, A., Powers, B., Berger, E. D., & Guha, A. 2019. Not so fast: Analyzing the performance of WebAssembly vs. native code. 2019 USENIX Annu. Tech. Conf., 107-120.
3. Nakamoto, S. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.
4. Wood, G. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum Project Yellow Paper 151, 1-32.
5. Parno, B., Howell, J., Gentry, C., & Raykova, M. 2013. Pinocchio: Nearly practical verifiable computation. 2013 IEEE Symp. Secur. Priv., 238-252.
6. Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z., & Papamanthou, C. 2016. Hawk: The blockchain model of cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts. 2016 IEEE Symp. Secur. Priv., 839-858.
7. Luu, L., Chu, D. H., Olickel, H., Saxena, P., & Hobor, A. 2016. Making smart contracts smarter. 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conf. Comput. Commun. Secur., 254-269.
8. Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Gordon, A. D., Pironti, A., Strub, P. Y., & Swamy, N. 2016. Formal verification of smart contracts: Short paper. 2016 ACM Workshop Prog. Lang. Anal. Secur., 91-96.
9. Grigg, I. 2017. EOS.IO Technical White Paper v2. one.
10. Wood, G. 2016. Polkadot: Vision for a heterogeneous multi-chain framework.
11. Schwarz, A., & Schanzenbach, M. 2019. Substrate: A next-generation blockchain framework. Parity Technologies.
12. Lehmann, D., Kinder, J., & Pradel, M. 2020. Everything old is new again: Binary security of WebAssembly. 29th USENIX Secur. Symp., 217-234.
13. Stievenart, Q., De Roover, C., & Ghafari, M. 2021. The security risk of lacking compiler protection in WebAssembly. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01421.
14. Brito, T., Lopes, P., Santos, N., & Santos, J. F. 2022. Wasmati: An efficient static vulnerability scanner for WebAssembly. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.12575.
15. Harnes, H., & Morrison, D. 2024. SoK: Analysis techniques for WebAssembly. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05943.
16. Perrone, G., & Romano, S. P. 2024. WebAssembly and security: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12297.
17. Jangda, A., Kelley, K., & Guha, A. 2021. A study of bugs in WebAssembly programs. 2021 ACM SIGPLAN Int. Symp. New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on Programming and Software, 1-16.
18. Perrone, G., & Romano, S. P. 2024. WebAssembly and security: A review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12297.
19. Fischer, A., Fuchs, A., & Kossmann, D. 2020. Integrating WebAssembly into serverless computing platforms: A lightweight virtualization approach. 15th ACM Eur. Conf. Comput. Syst., 1-16.
20. Zafar, H., Zafar, J., & Sharif, F. Automated clinical decision support for coronary plaques characterization from optical coherence tomography imaging with fused neural networks. Optics, 3(1), 8-18.
21. Zafar, H., Zafar, J., & Sharif, F. GANs-based intracoronary optical coherence tomography image augmentation for improved plaques characterization using deep neural networks. Optics, 4, 288-299.
22. Fazzini, M., & Wang, Y. 2021. WASPy: Detecting malicious WebAssembly modules in the wild. 30th USENIX Secur. Symp., 1-18.
23. Kumar, D., Fischer, M., & Pradel, M. 2020. Towards finding bugs in WebAssembly modules: A case study with WasmFuzz. 29th ACM SIGSOFT Int. Symp. Softw. Test. Anal., 1-12.
24. Brenner, S., & Buchmann, J. 2020. WebAssembly module isolation for secure web embedding. 15th Int. Conf. Avail., Reliab., and Secur., 1-10.
25. Gadepalli, S., & Porter, D. E. 2020. Formal verification of WebAssembly sandboxing guarantees. 31st IEEE Symp. Comput. Secur. Foundations, 123-139.
26. Yan, C., Gao, J., & Xu, S. 2021. WASMEdge: Secure and efficient WebAssembly execution for IoT applications. 20th ACM Int. Conf. Embed. Softw., 1-15.
27. Li, Y., Xu, C., & Wu, J. 2022. Enhancing WebAssembly execution efficiency on resource-constrained IoT devices. 27th IEEE Int. Symp. Real-Time Embed. Technol. Appl., 56-69.
28. Zhang, H., & Wang, X. 2023. Exploring the integration of WebAssembly and blockchain for IoT security. 11th Int. Conf. Comput. Secur. Appl., 187-203.
29. Sun, Z., & He, L. 2023. A survey on WebAssembly for blockchain security. Comput. Secur. 41, 3, 301-320.
30. Chen, P., & Liu, Y. 2024. The future of WebAssembly in decentralized applications. Decent. Comput. 18, 1, 55-73.