3 ms·
I'm sure there is a ton of design and thought put into making the native file system API safe and secure, but wow does it scare me right off the bat. Even if it
by jjice 6y ago
I'm sure there is a ton of design and thought put into making the native file system API safe and secure, but wow does it scare me right off the bat. Even if it has to be enabled by a user like camera or mic permissions, this can probably be used to get malware onto the machines of users that don't pay attention to permission requests or understand the implication of what they're doing.
Many friends of mine will immediately, without thought, click to allow camera, microphone, or location data as soon as the prompt shows up. I can see the native file system permission following the same process.
It'll be interesting to see how it works. I'm sure Google has put in quite a bit of effort into securing it.
- zelly 6y agoI doubt most casual users would know the distinction between "native filsystem access" and what the browser does already. They'll just (wrongly, in this case) assume the browser is safe as long as they don't download and install anything, and brazenly click Yes to every prompt that shows up.
- jarek-foksa 6y agoThe prompt that asks user for a permission to write a local file says: "<domainName> will be able to edit <fileName> until you close all tabs for this site [Cancel] [Save changes]". But before this prompt is even shown, user must first manually select the file with the native file picker dialog and click the "Open" button. Therefore, giving accidental accesses to a file is not going to be as easy as with a camera or a microphone.
- fomine3 6y agoIt looks reasonable restriction.