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

Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

chromestatus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#91

Post by rixthefox »

flangola7 wrote: post #84
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not hand-waving; it literally is not the website's responsibility.

Organization executives and lawmakers are increasingly demanding that digital services be made un-hackable. Someone with an attitude and trying to shirk duty by claiming we just have to trust that all of the users will always be responsible and non-abusive all of the time, will at best be laughed and shooed out of the room. More realistically be given a final PIP. Telling your bosses "no I'm not going to do that" is…

Both groups of people who have no direct understanding of how any of this works.

You can demand change all you want but it doesn't change how the real world works. These people need to come off their high horse and come join the rest of us. So sick and tired of C-level people demanding shit they know nothing about.

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#93

Post by jauntywundrkind »

prox wrote: post #59
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject having only short, one dimensional views. Generally I am pro Project Fugu & pro building bigger better web. Google spends an enormous amount of effort working on specs with w3c, wicg, and other browser implementers advancing incredibly good & useful causes. They spend huge effort enhancing DevTools so everyone can work the web. Building a good & capable web is necessary for Google to survive. An open & capab…

I agree to an extend that you shouldn’t focus on bad only, but as the old saying goes “so much is lost for the lack of a little more.” What my experience has taught me is that you have these 80% things that are good, but there is the one person or thing that ruins it for everyone. One person, one manager or CEO who pushes something through because he wants some gain, or one selfish move that is born out of short term…

Agreed & uovoted. I do tend to think it's incredible what a massive impact small influences can have.

Thankfully the web still is a very multiparty system, with various w3c group reviews & various implementer signals all being registered well ahead of time. Comments on blink-dev were strong & fast. Unlike almost every other system on the planet I think the mediation here is real & strong!

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#94

Post by goku12 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #88

Tim Berners-Lee is spinning in his grave and he's not even dead yet.

Are you sure? He was the one who green-lighted Encrypted Media Extensions, the earlier, unfortunately successful attempt to shoehorn proprietary DRM blob into browsers.

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#95

Post by kmeisthax »

goku12 wrote: post #94
kmeisthax wrote: post #88

Tim Berners-Lee is spinning in his grave and he's not even dead yet.

Are you sure? He was the one who green-lighted Encrypted Media Extensions, the earlier, unfortunately successful attempt to shoehorn proprietary DRM blob into browsers.

DRM blobs were already in browsers, it's the only reason why Hollywood let streaming services have websites at all. First it was trojan-horsed through Flash Player and Silverlight, and then individual browsers all licensed or built their own solutions[0] to make "plugin-free" DRM happen.

The attitude of the W3C was basically "we either kiss the ring or Hollywood forks us". So I can totally imagine Tim Berners-Lee spinning in his nonexistent grave then too. That doesn't mean he's Stallman levels of freedom-or-death.

[0] AFAIK, Google bought Widevine, Apple uses FairPlay, and Mozilla originally used Adobe but now uses Chrome's Widevine library.

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#96

Post by chii »

Gigachad wrote: post #76
kevincox wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in 100 years you will need to have your brain scanned to withdraw cash. The process will validate both your identity and that you aren't being coerced. It has to stop somewhere. 100% security may reduce the banks' fraud costs but it isn't acceptable for personal freedom. "Choose a different bank then" only works until all they all adopt it.

The banks aren't the ones taking the loss for scams since their system doesn't have any faults, it's you or your computer that authorized the translation. I can see the reasoning for the push to more secure transactions. We constantly have people being scammed of their life savings due to sophisticated attacks beyond their understanding. I assume an old person cares about not being left poor and helpless in retiremen…

> while alternative devices will be available for complete freedom and tinkering.

this alternative will basically not exist for all intents and purposes if the "secure" version is the norm.

Let's take an existing example - why is there no such an alternative for home gaming consoles like Xbox or PS5?

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#97

Post by chii »

no_time wrote: post #60

There it is. Decades of turning up the heat and boiling the frog has culminated in this proposal. From secure boot and TPMs to SafetyNet and Pluton. Even in this very thread there are people saying this is not so bad because “it will help prevent fraud” lmao.

It's sad that "prevent fraud" is the supposed benefit, when most fraud happens via phishing and social engineering rather than a technical exploit. And yet this is the way it would be sold to the unknowing public.

It's "think of the children!" way of arguing for intrusions and surveillance.

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#98

Post by chii »

kevincox wrote: post #69
ShowalkKama wrote: post #61

>6.1.1. Secure context only Web environment integrity MUST only be enabled in a secure context. This is to ensure that the website is not spoofed. Todo do they realize that you can use a custom certificate / patch the check routines? I don't think they quite realize what they are even suggesting.

You are the one being naive. This will be a cryptographically signed stack from the TPM, to the bootloader to the OS to the browser. If you flip a single bit away from the "approved" that signature will fail.

This is why TPM should never have been allowed. It's a way for control to be removed from the user, even tho they wholly own the physical machine!

Re: Google Chrome Proposal – Web Environment Integrity

#99

Post by kevincox »

chii wrote: post #98
kevincox wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one being naive. This will be a cryptographically signed stack from the TPM, to the bootloader to the OS to the browser. If you flip a single bit away from the "approved" that signature will fail.

This is why TPM should never have been allowed. It's a way for control to be removed from the user, even tho they wholly own the physical machine!

I'm not sure about this. TPMs can provide valuable features such as non-bruteforcable disk encryption and other secret management and secure boot can be valuable protection for your devices. The real problem here is that this is allowing a third-party to verify what software you are running. Doing these things on my device by my choice is one thing. Having another party require that I am using a specific unmodified software stack is another.
Post reply on HN