5 ms·
> Content being heavily reliant on JavaScript “injection” Salient point right here. Being served a blank white page (when JS is disabled) can deter a person fr
by doc_gunthrop 7y ago
> Content being heavily reliant on JavaScript “injection”
Salient point right here. Being served a blank white page (when JS is disabled) can deter a person from ever visiting a site again. Some peope out there want to vet a site before allowing it to run arbitrary code on their machine.
- darepublic 7y agoHence the move toward static site frameworks like react static and gatsby
- _bxg1 7y ago> run arbitrary code on their machine That's a bit of an exaggeration. JavaScript is strongly sandboxed and has a pretty good permissions system. The only malicious things it can really do are 1) based on cookies or 2) crypto mining. Personally I think it's unreasonable to expect today's sites to work without JavaScript completely. The real benefits of using it sparingly are: - Pages load faster - Pages are more responsive - Applications are less stateful and call out to systems that have a larger number of eyes on them, making them less fragile and lowering maintenance complexity Minimalism is a virtue in any programming context
- patrick5415 7y agoAbout the only time JavaScript is useful is something like google docs. The rest is just fluff and there’s no reason a webpage should require it.
- tomjen3 7y agoI am split: web pages can be enhanced with JS, but webpage mostly shouldn't need them (exception: some data visualization does benefit from being able to dynamically change values). Web apps on the other hand, probably do need them. I use newsblur and definitely enjoy the shortcuts.
- gugagore 7y agoThe microarchitectural side-channel attacks that have received a lot of attention lately really challenge the idea of a "sandbox". Also the poster said that webpages shouldn't be blank without having, not that they should be fully functional. I think it's reasonable to expect some function without javascript.
- bo1024 7y ago3) Fingerprinting and tracking in general are heavily javascript-focused. Less common in practice (I assume), but still possible, are 4) Rowhammer or Spectre/Meltdown style attacks that break out of the permission system. Finally, there's general trickery, manipulation, and malware, like trying to embed a frame from Facebook and steal user credentials or so on (I'm fuzzy on these sorts of attacks, not an expert).
- dlhavema 7y agoBefore javascript took over tracking the 1x1 white pixel ruled the land. No javascript needed there.
- _bxg1 7y ago3) Right - and I guess "fingerprinting" goes slightly beyond cookies - but when people say "execute arbitrary code" they typically imply something has free-reign, which JavaScript generally doesn't. 4) True, although it's my understanding that the exploits are hard to implement, doubly-so from an abstracted layer like JavaScript. > trickery, manipulation...like trying to embed a frame from Facebook and steal user credentials or so on This falls under "cookies-based", and I'm pretty sure no JavaScript is necessary for these kinds of attacks.
- bo1024 7y agoGood point on 3. I guess the main point is browsers at least disallow reading and writing arbitrary files directly.
- coin 7y ago> The only malicious things And a crappy end user experience. Why do I need to execute code just to read a static, read-only text article?
- lultimouomo 7y ago> JavaScript is strongly sandboxed and has a pretty good permissions system We now live in a post-Spectre world. I don't think a sandbox means all it meant in 2017.
- SquareWheel 7y agoCan you point to a single real-world example of Spectre being used in a browser attack?
- JustSomeNobody 7y agoSadly, the majority of web devs don’t give a rat’s butt about those users.
- SquareWheel 7y agoAll they do is complain, make special demands, then go on to block ads anyway. It makes it hard to care about those users.
- sgift 7y agoCould've been different if web devs listened when they got told "your ads get overbearing, no one can even try to concentrate on the content anymore" - but they were greedy and ad blocking came about as self defense.
- cameronbrown 7y agoSeems that ad-blocking has made ads worse.
- grogenaut 7y agoIt's called an arms race for a reason