To add some color to "workerd is not a hardened sandbox":

workerd does not include any sandboxing layers other than V8 itself. If someone has a V8 zero-day exploit, they can break out of the sandbox.

But putting aside zero-day exploits for a moment, workerd is designed to be a sandbox. That is, applications by default have access to nothing except what you give them. There is only one default-on type of access: public internet access (covering public IPs only). You can disable this by overriding `globalOutbound` in the config (with which you can either intercept internet requests, or just block them).

This is pretty different from e.g. Node, which starts from the assumption that apps should have permission to run arbitrary native code, limited only by the permissions of the user account under which Node is running.

Some other runtimes advertise various forms of permissions, but workerd is the only one I know of where this is the core intended use case, and where all permissions (other than optionally public internet access, as mentioned) must be granted via capability-based security.

Unfortunately, JavaScript engines are complicated, which means they tend to have bugs, and these bugs are often exploitable to escape the sandbox. This is not just true of V8, it's true of all of them; any that claims otherwise is naive. Cloudflare in production has a multi-layer security model to mitigate this, but our model involves a lot of, shall we say, active management which can't easily be packaged up into an open source product.

With all that said, not all threat models require you to worry about such zero-day exploits, and you need to think about risk/benefit tradeoffs. We obviously have to worry about zero-days at Cloudflare since anyone can just upload code to us and run it. But if you're not literally accepting code directly from anonymous internet users then the risk may be a lot lower, and the overall security benefit of fine-grained sandboxing may be worth the increased exposure to zero-days.