3 ms·

Web Extensions have nothing to do with DRM.

brudgers 9y ago
The sandbox model limits the ability of the user to interact with the contents loaded into the browser from a remote source. This is required for a robust implementation of DRM and a robust implementation of DRM is a goal for Mozilla. The sandbox model necessary for DRM is what limits the power of web extensions. DRM priority is why the sandbox model cannot be turned off by the user. Making Netflix in Chrome low risk for Netflix is why the user is no longer allowed to control their browser. The sales pitch for Quantum is that it is faster for media consumption. The developer pitch is that it is easier to write extensions for consuming content.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  This is nonsense, sorry. The Web Extensions API is designed (1) to prevent add-ons from breaking as the Firefox browser changes; (2) to allow constraining the behavior of add-ons to limit their ability to compromise the security model of the browser. The API is not intended to prevent you from changing the software you're running on your own system. If it were, you'd see pervasive obfuscation like PatchGuard, not sandboxed EME plugins with clearly defined interfaces.
  - brudgers 9y ago
    The security model of the browser includes robust support for DRM. Quantum broke add-ons. Their funcationality is not reproducible, e.g. reading and writing ordinary files on the file system, interacting with the javscript running on a webpage, providing an arbitrary keymapping, etc. Quantum reflects a decision to remove user controlled functionality in support of general purpose computing and turn Firefox into a media consumption appliance controlled by Mozilla and fungible with Chrome.
    - pcwalton 9y ago
      It's completely legitimate to be unhappy with, and to disagree with, the decision to drop support for XUL add-ons. What I don't appreciate is the incorrect assumption that I, along with everyone else who supported this decision, did so in order to enhance DRM. I supported this decision because the XUL add-on "API" did not cleanly separate interface from implementation, and as a result major upgrades to the Firefox front-end and engine were becoming very difficult to undertake.
      - brudgers 9y ago
        Whether or not everyone did it in order to enhance DRM, it is still the case that that is one of the end results. Another is that Firefox no longer supports general purpose computing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
        pcwalton 9y ago
        > Whether or not everyone did it in order to enhance DRM, it is still the case that that is one of the end results. Virtually nobody who works in DRM would agree that the add-ons model has anything to do with the effectiveness of DRM. If you have access to the user account running Firefox, running arbitrary unsigned native code in the Firefox process is trivial. > Another is that Firefox no longer supports general purpose computing. XUL add-ons were JavaScript. Web Extensions are JavaScript. You can write whatever Web Extension you want for whatever purpose you want.
        brudgers 9y ago
        A web extension cannot read and write ordinary files on the file system. It cannot assign commands to the key combination Ctl-Shift-Q. It cannot redefine javascript objects created by the web page. These are not defaults that can be toggled by the user. They are hard coded into the design.

The sandbox model limits the ability of the user to interact with the contents loaded into the browser from a remote source. This is required for a robust implementation of DRM and a robust implementation of DRM is a goal for Mozilla. The sandbox model necessary for DRM is what limits the power of web extensions. DRM priority is why the sandbox model cannot be turned off by the user. Making Netflix in Chrome low risk for Netflix is why the user is no longer allowed to control their browser. The sales pitch for Quantum is that it is faster for media consumption. The developer pitch is that it is easier to write extensions for consuming content.

pcwalton 9y ago
This is nonsense, sorry. The Web Extensions API is designed (1) to prevent add-ons from breaking as the Firefox browser changes; (2) to allow constraining the behavior of add-ons to limit their ability to compromise the security model of the browser. The API is not intended to prevent you from changing the software you're running on your own system. If it were, you'd see pervasive obfuscation like PatchGuard, not sandboxed EME plugins with clearly defined interfaces.
- brudgers 9y ago
  The security model of the browser includes robust support for DRM. Quantum broke add-ons. Their funcationality is not reproducible, e.g. reading and writing ordinary files on the file system, interacting with the javscript running on a webpage, providing an arbitrary keymapping, etc. Quantum reflects a decision to remove user controlled functionality in support of general purpose computing and turn Firefox into a media consumption appliance controlled by Mozilla and fungible with Chrome.
  - pcwalton 9y ago
    It's completely legitimate to be unhappy with, and to disagree with, the decision to drop support for XUL add-ons. What I don't appreciate is the incorrect assumption that I, along with everyone else who supported this decision, did so in order to enhance DRM. I supported this decision because the XUL add-on "API" did not cleanly separate interface from implementation, and as a result major upgrades to the Firefox front-end and engine were becoming very difficult to undertake.
    - brudgers 9y ago
      Whether or not everyone did it in order to enhance DRM, it is still the case that that is one of the end results. Another is that Firefox no longer supports general purpose computing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
      - pcwalton 9y ago
        > Whether or not everyone did it in order to enhance DRM, it is still the case that that is one of the end results. Virtually nobody who works in DRM would agree that the add-ons model has anything to do with the effectiveness of DRM. If you have access to the user account running Firefox, running arbitrary unsigned native code in the Firefox process is trivial. > Another is that Firefox no longer supports general purpose computing. XUL add-ons were JavaScript. Web Extensions are JavaScript. You can write whatever Web Extension you want for whatever purpose you want.
        brudgers 9y ago
        A web extension cannot read and write ordinary files on the file system. It cannot assign commands to the key combination Ctl-Shift-Q. It cannot redefine javascript objects created by the web page. These are not defaults that can be toggled by the user. They are hard coded into the design.