Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 460 posts

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#13

Post by tentacleuno »

saurik wrote: post #5

This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempts to use this stuff to do copy protection) and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browse…

> who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices

The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1].

I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do we protest this? Google will just strong-arm their implementation through Chromium and, when banks, Netflix & co. start using it, they've effectively cornered other engines into implementing it.

This isn't new to them. They did it with FLoC, which most people were opposed to[2]. The most they did was FLoC was deprecate it and re-release it under a different name.

The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.

[0]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser [1]: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#14

Post by fabrice_d »

PaulHoule wrote: post #3
reactormonk wrote: post #2

tl;dr: DRM for websites

It looks very similar to the “secure boot” mechanisms in Windows and other commercial client OS. Strikes me as very dangerous though on the web where there are so many paths for malware to get in and this could get in the way of plugging the holes.

No, it's similar to attestation APIs like android SafetyNet (now called Play Integrity API) that are used to check that "your ROM is valid according to Google".

Secure boot can protect you eg. against malware gaining write access and modifying your system. I see it as user protection, as long as you can sign the trust chain. This is what GrapheneOS is doing as far as I know.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#15

Post by tapoxi »

tentacleuno wrote: post #13
saurik wrote: post #5

This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempts to use this stuff to do copy protection) and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browse…

> who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1]. I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do…

I mean Firefox caved to support EME. This isn't the early days of the web anymore either, the enthusiasts are a small minority of global web traffic that this will probably succeed even with a large scale boycott.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#17

Post by leodriesch »

lucideer wrote: post #12

The issues tab is a fun read - never seen a response like this on a web spec.

They seem to have closed down comments on it, I'm seeing

> An owner of this repository has limited the ability to comment to users that have contributed to this repository in the past.

Re: Web Environment Integrity API Proposal

#20

Post by spystath »

tentacleuno wrote: post #13
saurik wrote: post #5

This is pretty much the inevitable end-game of the web, in no small part funded by ad-based business models (as the analog gap pretty much destroys most attempts to use this stuff to do copy protection) and enabled by developers who have insisted we shove as much difficult-to-implement functionality (by which I am talking about CSS complex stuff, not powerful-but-easy-to-code APIs for OS-level access) into the browse…

> who is finally putting their foot down and deciding that we are all going to be forced to either used fully-locked down devices The person who wrote the proposal[0] is from Google. All the authors of the proposal are from Google[1]. I've been thinking carefully about this comment, but I really don't know what to say. It's absolutely heartbreaking watching something I really care about die by a thousand cuts; how do…

> how do we protest this?

You do not and you cannot. It was written in stone once Chrome dominated the browser market. What Chrome (Google) wants, Chrome (Google) gets. Despite all the good engineering Google wants to sell ads, that's all there is to it. And the result is this proposal.

> The saving grace here might be that Firefox won't implement the proposal.

It's irrelevant and we are an irrelevant minority. Unless people switch to FF in droves the web is Chrome. And they won't because at the end of the day people just want to get home from their shitty jobs and stream a show. As long as that works everything else is a non-issue.

Post reply on HN