3 ms·

> Which is why the web has the most robust permissions system of any platform, period. I fundamentally disagree with that. Yes it has a permissions system but

> Which is why the web has the most robust permissions system of any platform, period. I fundamentally disagree with that. Yes it has a permissions system but is it really all that robust? Let alone the most robust of any platform? First off you're dependant on the browser implementing that correctly (that's not always the case) and often there are thousand different ways you can still do naughty things even if those permissions are implemented correctly. Then there are the thousands of vulnerabilities built into the very design of the web that developers (of both web and browsers) are constantly having to code around (XSS, et al). And that's without even addressing the current problems we have with data leakage and privacy concerns that we seemingly have little control over at all. Compare that to networking where you have VLANs, subnets, firewalls and other network ACLs; or Linux servers where you have tools like SELinux. These tools might not be simple to use from the outset but their certainly a great deal more robust than any of the models the web has offered us thus far.

kitsunesoba 8y ago
Also worth mentioning that there’s a ton of stuff that browsers just hands over to websites without making so much as a peep to the user. It’s great that they pop dialogs for the things they do, but they’re still far too permissive. By default, sites shouldn’t have access to anything more than a JavaScript engine and HTML rendering facilities. If they need/want more, they should have to make a case and earn my trust.
Ajedi32 8y ago
Sorry, I should have qualified that statement a bit more. The web has the most robust permissions system of any _consumer-facing_ platform, period. Obviously if you're willing to trade convenience for security there are millions of ways you could build a more "robust" system, but it doesn't help to have the most secure system in the world if it's too inconvenient for anyone to bother using it. With that being said, the web's permissions system _is_ very robust: > First off you're dependant on the browser implementing that correctly (that's not always the case) When is it ever not the case? Zero-day vulnerabilities? That's not a very convincing argument; every system has vulnerabilities on occasion. > often there are thousand different ways you can still do naughty things even if those permissions are implemented correctly When is that ever not true of a permissions system? The point of permissions is to _limit_ what naughty things an application can do, not eliminate bad behavior entirely. The web's permissions model was built with the expectation of abuse in mind, which is the reason why it's so robust in the first place. > Then there are the thousands of vulnerabilities built into the very design of the web that developers (of both web and browsers) are constantly having to code around (XSS, et al). I don't see what vulnerabilities in third party apps has to do with permissions. XSS can't bypass permission prompts. > the current problems we have with data leakage and privacy concerns that we seemingly have little control over at all You actually have a _ton_ of control. Just look at some of the crazy things you can do with extensions like uBlock or Privacy Badger: those extensions can actually reach into the internal workings of a web application and disable tracker code or replace it with noop stubs. No other platform affords that level of control over third party apps. Yes, this stuff was built out of necessity; the web is a much more hostile environment than most. But _because_ these web platform features were built with that environment in mind, the web's permissions system is the most robust of any _consumer-facing_ platform. > VLANs, subnets, firewalls and other network ACLs; or Linux servers where you have tools like SELinux These are not remotely consumer friendly. Again, my apologies for not qualifying my earlier statement.
- laumars 8y ago
  > Sorry, I should have qualified that statement a bit more. The web has the most robust permissions system of any _consumer-facing_ platform, period. I don't agree with that elaboration either. eg Zone Alarm offered far more robust permissions for desktop Windows users in the 90s than the web offers now, 20 years later. Then you have the permissions system on iOS that does all the same things you're boasting browsers do but with the additional feature of telling you about apps that have been granted access to x and been using it frequently (eg if location data is being heavily used) so you get some warnings if a particular app might be abusing the permission you granted it (it's pretty rudimentary compared to the tools techies like us might use but for an average consumer it's far better than expecting them to look at the `networks` tab in Chrome) > The point of permissions is to _limit_ what naughty things an application can do, not eliminate bad behavior entirely. My point is the current permissions model of the web doesn't eliminate a whole lot of bad behavior. In fact I'd go further than that and say it's fundamentally useless at eliminating bad behavior. > I don't see what vulnerabilities in third party apps has to do with permissions. XSS can't bypass permission prompts. XSS was just the first example that came into my head about how permissive the web is by default but i think it's a relevant one. Applications should not be able to alter private data or runtime behavior of another running application unless the developers of that other application specifically allows it. This is something OS's have had to harden against and yet it's considered a "feature" of the web. That's definitely not an example of a robust permissions system in my opinion. > You actually have a _ton_ of control. Just look at some of the crazy things you can do with extensions like uBlock or Privacy Badger: those extensions can actually reach into the internal workings of a web application and disable tracker code or replace it with noop stubs. No other platform affords that level of control over third party apps. That's not a permissions system of the web, that's additional security, usability or privacy tools you have to install to block parts of the web. And even if you want to argue that is the same thing as browser permissions then it's worth pointing out that having to install additional plugins to block stuff that should be blocked by default is categorically not a robust system. Let alone the fact that these countermeasures aren't 100% effective and are easily circumvented. Again, hardly an example of a robust system (though that's not the fault of the aforementioned tools - they're doing the best job they can under the circumstances). > [VLANs, subnets, firewalls and other network ACLs] are not remotely consumer friendly. Again, my apologies for not qualifying my earlier statement. Actually you'd be surprised at just how many consumer friendly networking tools there are. From the management interfaces on home routers to firewalls in desktop solutions like AV suites. I've been lucky enough to have worked in a great many different niches within IT over the course of my career. From managing a team of desktop support engineers where I've hard to familiarise myself with different solutions available for desktop users, to software development (web development as well as "traditional" software for Windows desktops and Linux/UNIX server daemons), to being part of a security team (I've installed SIEMs and guided businesses through PCI DSS and gambling commision compliance), to server administration (and, more recently, DevOps); and honestly my takeaway from that varied experience is the web is very much like PC security in the early 90s. Sure there are some rudimentary security policies baked into the OS/browser but they're often not granular enough and definitely not far reaching enough. Thus to get any real security you're forced into running all sorts of (often performance crippling) 3rd party solutions and even those aren't 100% effective. It's definitely not robust - but frankly I'd go further and say it's completely garbage. But that's just my 2c.

kitsunesoba 8y ago

Also worth mentioning that there’s a ton of stuff that browsers just hands over to websites without making so much as a peep to the user. It’s great that they pop dialogs for the things they do, but they’re still far too permissive. By default, sites shouldn’t have access to anything more than a JavaScript engine and HTML rendering facilities. If they need/want more, they should have to make a case and earn my trust.

Ajedi32 8y ago

Sorry, I should have qualified that statement a bit more. The web has the most robust permissions system of any _consumer-facing_ platform, period. Obviously if you're willing to trade convenience for security there are millions of ways you could build a more "robust" system, but it doesn't help to have the most secure system in the world if it's too inconvenient for anyone to bother using it. With that being said, the web's permissions system _is_ very robust: > First off you're dependant on the browser implementing that correctly (that's not always the case) When is it ever not the case? Zero-day vulnerabilities? That's not a very convincing argument; every system has vulnerabilities on occasion. > often there are thousand different ways you can still do naughty things even if those permissions are implemented correctly When is that ever not true of a permissions system? The point of permissions is to _limit_ what naughty things an application can do, not eliminate bad behavior entirely. The web's permissions model was built with the expectation of abuse in mind, which is the reason why it's so robust in the first place. > Then there are the thousands of vulnerabilities built into the very design of the web that developers (of both web and browsers) are constantly having to code around (XSS, et al). I don't see what vulnerabilities in third party apps has to do with permissions. XSS can't bypass permission prompts. > the current problems we have with data leakage and privacy concerns that we seemingly have little control over at all You actually have a _ton_ of control. Just look at some of the crazy things you can do with extensions like uBlock or Privacy Badger: those extensions can actually reach into the internal workings of a web application and disable tracker code or replace it with noop stubs. No other platform affords that level of control over third party apps. Yes, this stuff was built out of necessity; the web is a much more hostile environment than most. But _because_ these web platform features were built with that environment in mind, the web's permissions system is the most robust of any _consumer-facing_ platform. > VLANs, subnets, firewalls and other network ACLs; or Linux servers where you have tools like SELinux These are not remotely consumer friendly. Again, my apologies for not qualifying my earlier statement.

laumars 8y ago
> Sorry, I should have qualified that statement a bit more. The web has the most robust permissions system of any _consumer-facing_ platform, period. I don't agree with that elaboration either. eg Zone Alarm offered far more robust permissions for desktop Windows users in the 90s than the web offers now, 20 years later. Then you have the permissions system on iOS that does all the same things you're boasting browsers do but with the additional feature of telling you about apps that have been granted access to x and been using it frequently (eg if location data is being heavily used) so you get some warnings if a particular app might be abusing the permission you granted it (it's pretty rudimentary compared to the tools techies like us might use but for an average consumer it's far better than expecting them to look at the `networks` tab in Chrome) > The point of permissions is to _limit_ what naughty things an application can do, not eliminate bad behavior entirely. My point is the current permissions model of the web doesn't eliminate a whole lot of bad behavior. In fact I'd go further than that and say it's fundamentally useless at eliminating bad behavior. > I don't see what vulnerabilities in third party apps has to do with permissions. XSS can't bypass permission prompts. XSS was just the first example that came into my head about how permissive the web is by default but i think it's a relevant one. Applications should not be able to alter private data or runtime behavior of another running application unless the developers of that other application specifically allows it. This is something OS's have had to harden against and yet it's considered a "feature" of the web. That's definitely not an example of a robust permissions system in my opinion. > You actually have a _ton_ of control. Just look at some of the crazy things you can do with extensions like uBlock or Privacy Badger: those extensions can actually reach into the internal workings of a web application and disable tracker code or replace it with noop stubs. No other platform affords that level of control over third party apps. That's not a permissions system of the web, that's additional security, usability or privacy tools you have to install to block parts of the web. And even if you want to argue that is the same thing as browser permissions then it's worth pointing out that having to install additional plugins to block stuff that should be blocked by default is categorically not a robust system. Let alone the fact that these countermeasures aren't 100% effective and are easily circumvented. Again, hardly an example of a robust system (though that's not the fault of the aforementioned tools - they're doing the best job they can under the circumstances). > [VLANs, subnets, firewalls and other network ACLs] are not remotely consumer friendly. Again, my apologies for not qualifying my earlier statement. Actually you'd be surprised at just how many consumer friendly networking tools there are. From the management interfaces on home routers to firewalls in desktop solutions like AV suites. I've been lucky enough to have worked in a great many different niches within IT over the course of my career. From managing a team of desktop support engineers where I've hard to familiarise myself with different solutions available for desktop users, to software development (web development as well as "traditional" software for Windows desktops and Linux/UNIX server daemons), to being part of a security team (I've installed SIEMs and guided businesses through PCI DSS and gambling commision compliance), to server administration (and, more recently, DevOps); and honestly my takeaway from that varied experience is the web is very much like PC security in the early 90s. Sure there are some rudimentary security policies baked into the OS/browser but they're often not granular enough and definitely not far reaching enough. Thus to get any real security you're forced into running all sorts of (often performance crippling) 3rd party solutions and even those aren't 100% effective. It's definitely not robust - but frankly I'd go further and say it's completely garbage. But that's just my 2c.