6 ms·

> This isn't some evil plot, it's just fallout from Chrome removing support for third-party plugins and thus the plugin management UI So instead it's just a fa

> This isn't some evil plot, it's just fallout from Chrome removing support for third-party plugins and thus the plugin management UI So instead it's just a fallout from an earlier plot that is no less evil than this one appears to be.

Buge 10y ago
It's a debatable question what is evil. Governments were actively exploiting plugins, so removing them makes users more secure.
Dylan16807 10y ago
Removing binary plugin support is not evil at all.
- chii 10y ago
  but attempting to add DRM to an open standard is!
  - yrro 10y ago
    Blame the content producers who insist that distributors 'protect' their content with DRM. Distributors aren't going to leave that money on the floor.
    - syshum 10y ago
      Why not blame both, as both are to blame. W3C is more to blame that all of them, as they have violated their mission statement with EME and DRM
      - yrro 10y ago
        I guess I just don't see the harm. If EME standardization did not take place at W3C, I think it would take place at another standards organization, or privately between content distributors and browser developers. Either way, it still happens and nothing is materially different.
        syshum 10y ago
        If I go to a site that is "HTML5 Compatible" I should not have to worry if my "HTML5 Browser" has all the proper binary blobs and approvals to support the content. If something is standard complaint it should work for all platforms that support the standard not just the Billion dollar corporations that paid to get their technology included into the standard
  - lima 10y ago
    "Lesser of two evils". I prefer a nicely sandboxed and secured EME plugin over the insecure and clunkly silverlight pipelight trickery that was necessary before. Blame the media industry for forcing it.
    - throwaway2048 10y ago
      Or we can blame google for gleefully going along too.
    - mrighele 10y ago
      Google _is_ part of the media industry.
      - chippy 10y ago
        It's part of the advertising industry who's clients include the media industry.
        mrighele 10y ago
        True, but I was thinking more about the part where they sell music streaming services (Google Play Music, YouTube Red). Maybe I am wrong since they are not producers, but I considered this as being part of the media industry.
    - hlandau 10y ago
      I don't think so. If Google was only implementing DRM to tick boxes, they wouldn't be implementing "extracurriculars" like hardware-based DRM on ChromeOS devices. They wouldn't own the very DRM company whose product they're peddling, a company which advertises to the very industry which is supposedly forcing Google's hand. http://www.widevine.com/ http://www.widevine.com/ Take a look at this page and search for 'HW_SECURE_ALL': http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html Now, what exactly is the point in implementing a more secure DRM variant (which as far as I can tell uses remote attestation) if content remains available to more 'vulnerable' platforms? We even have a potential lockin motive by Google here, too. I can see it now: "Only available on ChromeOS."
sametmax 10y ago
Come on we can't have it both way : promote the standard based Web and complain about the death of 3rd party plugin !
- gear54rus 10y ago
  Why can't we? Do I really need that popup saying that 'developer mode' plugins are ZOMG HARMING ME? Because I installed ad nauseam that they removed because of the political BS? Don't get me wrong, my beloved firefox is not better. It wants me to install dev edition to be able to install anything. We made a mistake somewhere along the way.
  - yAnonymous 10y ago
    The mistake was made by companies abusing external plugin support to install plugins that make the browser vulnerable, slow or unstable. The browser vendors then get to take all the "credit" for that. Their decision to remove support for external plugins is absolutely reasonable.
  - trome 10y ago
    I get why both browsers require signed plugins unless you are using the developer branch, on Windows 7 a huge vector of attack was malicious files loading unsigned plugins in Chrome in particular (also saw it in Firefox, but rarer) that would create popups, inject ads onto sites that didn't have ads, steal passwords, etc. That being said, I wish there was a way I could use unsigned plugins easily, without reinstalling firefox.
  - derefr 10y ago
    Both of those things (unsigned plugins causing permanent warnings and/or only being enabled for a developer edition) happen because not doing them means leaking open the one last (huge) hole malware can infect computers through The modern browser 1. is its own OS, but 2. doesn't have any concept of a privilege-level separation. That means any random program running as user X is free to install an extension into user X's Chrome or Firefox profile without needing to ask permission. And then said extension can harvest your social-network profiles, replace ads with their own, etc.

Buge 10y ago

It's a debatable question what is evil. Governments were actively exploiting plugins, so removing them makes users more secure.

Dylan16807 10y ago

Removing binary plugin support is not evil at all.

chii 10y ago
but attempting to add DRM to an open standard is!
- yrro 10y ago
  Blame the content producers who insist that distributors 'protect' their content with DRM. Distributors aren't going to leave that money on the floor.
  - syshum 10y ago
    Why not blame both, as both are to blame. W3C is more to blame that all of them, as they have violated their mission statement with EME and DRM
    - yrro 10y ago
      I guess I just don't see the harm. If EME standardization did not take place at W3C, I think it would take place at another standards organization, or privately between content distributors and browser developers. Either way, it still happens and nothing is materially different.
      - syshum 10y ago
        If I go to a site that is "HTML5 Compatible" I should not have to worry if my "HTML5 Browser" has all the proper binary blobs and approvals to support the content. If something is standard complaint it should work for all platforms that support the standard not just the Billion dollar corporations that paid to get their technology included into the standard
- lima 10y ago
  "Lesser of two evils". I prefer a nicely sandboxed and secured EME plugin over the insecure and clunkly silverlight pipelight trickery that was necessary before. Blame the media industry for forcing it.
  - throwaway2048 10y ago
    Or we can blame google for gleefully going along too.
  - mrighele 10y ago
    Google _is_ part of the media industry.
    - chippy 10y ago
      It's part of the advertising industry who's clients include the media industry.
      - mrighele 10y ago
        True, but I was thinking more about the part where they sell music streaming services (Google Play Music, YouTube Red). Maybe I am wrong since they are not producers, but I considered this as being part of the media industry.
  - hlandau 10y ago
    I don't think so. If Google was only implementing DRM to tick boxes, they wouldn't be implementing "extracurriculars" like hardware-based DRM on ChromeOS devices. They wouldn't own the very DRM company whose product they're peddling, a company which advertises to the very industry which is supposedly forcing Google's hand. http://www.widevine.com/ http://www.widevine.com/ Take a look at this page and search for 'HW_SECURE_ALL': http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html http://www.widevine.com/product_news.html Now, what exactly is the point in implementing a more secure DRM variant (which as far as I can tell uses remote attestation) if content remains available to more 'vulnerable' platforms? We even have a potential lockin motive by Google here, too. I can see it now: "Only available on ChromeOS."

sametmax 10y ago

Come on we can't have it both way : promote the standard based Web and complain about the death of 3rd party plugin !

gear54rus 10y ago
Why can't we? Do I really need that popup saying that 'developer mode' plugins are ZOMG HARMING ME? Because I installed ad nauseam that they removed because of the political BS? Don't get me wrong, my beloved firefox is not better. It wants me to install dev edition to be able to install anything. We made a mistake somewhere along the way.
- yAnonymous 10y ago
  The mistake was made by companies abusing external plugin support to install plugins that make the browser vulnerable, slow or unstable. The browser vendors then get to take all the "credit" for that. Their decision to remove support for external plugins is absolutely reasonable.
- trome 10y ago
  I get why both browsers require signed plugins unless you are using the developer branch, on Windows 7 a huge vector of attack was malicious files loading unsigned plugins in Chrome in particular (also saw it in Firefox, but rarer) that would create popups, inject ads onto sites that didn't have ads, steal passwords, etc. That being said, I wish there was a way I could use unsigned plugins easily, without reinstalling firefox.
- derefr 10y ago
  Both of those things (unsigned plugins causing permanent warnings and/or only being enabled for a developer edition) happen because not doing them means leaking open the one last (huge) hole malware can infect computers through The modern browser 1. is its own OS, but 2. doesn't have any concept of a privilege-level separation. That means any random program running as user X is free to install an extension into user X's Chrome or Firefox profile without needing to ask permission. And then said extension can harvest your social-network profiles, replace ads with their own, etc.