4 ms·
That's a risk, that as an informed and adult user, I should be able to accept on my own. If I wanted a much less useful but marginally more secure browser, I'd
by wvenable 11y ago
That's a risk, that as an informed and adult user, I should be able to accept on my own. If I wanted a much less useful but marginally more secure browser, I'd just use Chrome.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- pcwalton 11y agoThat presupposes a bit of a false dichotomy, doesn't it? If the add-on APIs you need aren't there in the new framework, then the solution is to add them. I don't believe security and power should be in conflict--I want both!
- Nadya 11y agoYou can't have power without the choice to use it wrongly. You cannot add them in the new system without having the same security hole as the old system. e.g access to filesystems You cannot have the power to access filesystems while also remaining secure. It's an all-or-nothing deal.
- pcwalton 11y ago> You cannot have the power to access filesystems while also remaining secure. It's an all-or-nothing deal. No, it's not. There are many secure applications that can access the filesystem.
- Nadya 11y agoBut they have restrictions that limit their functionality, so they are trading power for security... Imagine this. I need read/write access of the host file or an equivalent functionality of mapping any arbitrary domain name to any arbitrary IP address. There is absolutely no way to keep that secure while allowing it because the functionality itself can be used for the wrong reasons. You either allow said functionality or you don't. There is absolutely no gray area.