91–100 of 136 posts
For context, this is is not allowing websites to prevent View Source for all users. Rather it is a setting that administrators can set on Google Chrome installations within their company/school/etc. That said, I highly doubt that Google would take this feature request seriously if this were not associated with another Google property. For example, I can't imagine that if Typeform users opened a similar bug ticket tha…
Some more context at https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=895462 : > With Schools using Google Forms as a testing platform, students are able to use this shortcut to search through the source of the page, and determine the correct answers.
Has anyone reached out to the Governor of Missouri for his opinion on this? Instead of changing chromium we could just prosecute the students. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28867562 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/viewing-website-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a case of shortsightedness, thinking, that they need to solve it in a javascript single page app framework and then forgot the basics about client server architecture, sending the solutions to the frontend, to check them right there. A beginner mistake.
Or just nobody did care. Contractor's main expense are kickbacks and actual product is made by cheapest subcontractor.
Any script that was doing a password comparison client-side was laughed at in the past -- rightly so --, but now that MS & Google see a business case it's fine? (And a password being a secret, is basically the same as the answer to a question).
With the current state of most websites, there's very little to be learnt from viewing the source anyway. On the other hand, with the current state of the source, one sees oneself having to use the debugger to get the damn things to even work.
That gibberish produced by the framework du jour, most of the time is creapily bloated, sometimes even shockingly redundant (read: you could strip 50% to 75% without loosing any functionality).
Modern web: bloat website, than use clown cars full of dependencies to "minimize" instead of having a slim and readable source in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of stuff can make sense when you consider "enterprise" environments like school labs. Notice on the bug report that the reproduction steps include setting a "DeveloperToolsDisabled" registry entry. Curl / wget wouldn't always be accessible in this kind of locked down setup (and they're probably trying to make it difficult even if it's impossible to block completely).
Doesnt this solution strike you as scorched earth? Kids figure out things, instead of improving said software, lockdown the actual browser? It's nearsighted to the point of disbelief.
Just saying. Apart from drug addicts doing blunt cybercrimes, I find the most creapy things are done by devs that got used to a big paycheck -- additionally, sometimes got fkd in academia before and just became a well trained cynic.
This is for the chromeos devices/managed chrome browsers [1]. From the bug [2] it looks like this was relevant in a school setting, where this is common. So the school hands out some chromebooks and wants to use that managed environment to prevent kids cheating on quizzes by looking at source code. DRM and related technologies are an effort to wrest control of devices away from their owners, and give control the manu…
The existence of badly-written apps that rely on this crutch become justification for keeping this stupid feature in.
Lazy admins will use `view-source: *` rather than blocking specific sites.
So frustrating: Everyone doing bad/lazy things 'wins', and the users suffer because now these devices basically can't be used to learn or do web development.
For context, this is is not allowing websites to prevent View Source for all users. Rather it is a setting that administrators can set on Google Chrome installations within their company/school/etc. That said, I highly doubt that Google would take this feature request seriously if this were not associated with another Google property. For example, I can't imagine that if Typeform users opened a similar bug ticket tha…
Is it remotely possible to vote against this policy? Who controls Chromium features – I know it's open source and thus one could always fork it, but how is the project governed? "Benign" dictatorship?
I think you may have some core assumption that open source software has a voting system when none really exists and it’s either a committee or a corporation that gives no voting rights whatsoever. Participation instead gets things in when your are both trusted and the governance approves.
For context, this is is not allowing websites to prevent View Source for all users. Rather it is a setting that administrators can set on Google Chrome installations within their company/school/etc. That said, I highly doubt that Google would take this feature request seriously if this were not associated with another Google property. For example, I can't imagine that if Typeform users opened a similar bug ticket tha…
Is it remotely possible to vote against this policy? Who controls Chromium features – I know it's open source and thus one could always fork it, but how is the project governed? "Benign" dictatorship?
Sites cannot enable it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You guys are giving administrators way too much power without any good reasons. I realize that if they really wanted, they could give up on Chrome and use something else, but for many of them, they will simply lock everything down out of laziness and probably wouldn't without a convenient way of doing so. An example out of many: why give admins a simple way to disable the built-in password manager? This just enables…
As to your last question, many organizations have a central password management system that lets them audit who uses which password and when. Having the passwords stored in a secondary system makes the audits useless.
To answer a few questions here: 1. I landed this fix because there was a policy that did not work properly. We could instead document that the URLBlocklist policy works for every scheme but one, or we could fix it. Fixing it makes more sense. 2. This policy only can be set on managed machines. 3. This policy, in isolation, is trivially circumvented. Managed environments block many things, including many of the propos…