91–100 of 194 posts
Not sure if this is covered under Widevine, but Google also blocks anything that is not a major browser from logging into any of its services. https://security.googleblog.com/2019/04/better-protection-ag...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717156
See the comments for a summary and why the submission was flagged.
Not sure if this is covered under Widevine, but Google also blocks anything that is not a major browser from logging into any of its services. https://security.googleblog.com/2019/04/better-protection-ag...
It's pretty warranted when this is the type of attack possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717156 See the comments for a summary and why the submission was flagged.
I'm no an expert on DRM, but maybe someone here is. What would open source programs using DRM look like? My understanding is that the whole point of DRM is to prevent the software and the user from having arbitrary control over the data, which is fundamentally opposite of open source. Say that Google desperately wanted to support any reasonable method to accomplish allowing open source tools access to DRM-protected m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many standards to follow, too many APIs, too complicated. Sometimes I wonder if the web standards aren't designed specifically to prevent any meaningful competition.
Web standards are designed for cooperation not competition.
Web standards merely describe the current world of web browsers and attempt to retroactively take credit for it.
Why aren’t there more browsers? Is it just a matter of all the IP tied up by the majors?
There's a number of reasons, but one of the biggest is that it's impractical for an individual or small group to create a web engine that is capable enough that users will want to use it. This means the only options are to either fork an existing browser (as most Chromium forks are doing) or build a browser around an embeddable engine (as WebKit-based browsers do, and hopefully one day Servo-based browsers will). For…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty warranted when this is the type of attack possible: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25717156 See the comments for a summary and why the submission was flagged.
It's also a glaring ADA violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is a web browser is arguably something which has a webview in it. The difference Google considers between "a browser" and "an app embedding a webview" is whether that app is specifically Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, or IE.
There is another, arguably legitimate differentiating feature: How up to date the embedded web engine is (and how quickly you would be able to merge upstream changes, update the framework, wait for "browsers" implemented using the embedded framework to update their dependencies, etc.) That can be a pretty big deal when there's a fix for a high-impact vulnerability.
With a known browser, you get reasonable guarantees that TLS is being handled properly. With an unknown browser, these guarantees are gone. Considering the average person has no idea what https/TLS is, banning all unknown browsers as a defense against phishing seems completely reasonable.
Am I wrong, but is this more evidence of monopoly power by Google?