3 ms·

Yeah, I think this feature and the signed exchanges standard both sound great. It allows CDN-like servers to host content without having to be trusted to not mo

Yeah, I think this feature and the signed exchanges standard both sound great. It allows CDN-like servers to host content without having to be trusted to not modify the content. That sounds like an improvement over the current CDN situation. Also, sites that link to other sites can preload the linked site's content into the user's browser, without leaking the user's IP to the linked site, so if the user doesn't follow the link, nothing about the user is revealed to the linked site. That sounds like a performance and privacy improvement wrapped up into one. I'm finding the rest of this discussion thread extremely disappointing as it seems like most of the posts here are just "amp=bad and amp people like this so it's also bad".

dane-pgp 8y ago
Signed Exchanges could also remove some of the concerns around JavaScript crypto, because there is a (potentially offline) key that signs the web app you're running, so you're not vulnerable to hacks of the hosting environment itself. What's really needed is a way for the browser to lock a given web app/package to a specific version (and hash), so that even if the signing key becomes compromised, the app can't auto-update to a newer version containing malicious code. Combining this with something like Certificate/Binary Transparency would allow browsers to check that they are not being uniquely targeted with a specially altered version, and you could set a policy saying "Only auto-update to a newer version of this web app if its hash has been published in a log for more than a month (and/or endorsed by signatures from N out of M other organisations I trust)".