4 ms·

Seems like it can be disabled in flags for now, which I just went in and did. That flag is bound to disappear at some point though… might become necessary to wr

Seems like it can be disabled in flags for now, which I just went in and did. That flag is bound to disappear at some point though… might become necessary to wrap browsers in an isolating sandbox or VM just to be sure they can't touch things they're not supposed to.

_qulr 6y ago
chrome://flags/#native-file-system-api I already had it disabled before LOL
chromedev 6y ago
It has a policy as well and will always allow you to disable it. No need for hyperbole.
- giantrobot 6y ago
  "Will always" is a phrase Google does not know the meaning of.
  - chromedev 6y ago
    For filesystem access they are beholden to their enterprise users as well and Chromium still has a lot of open source developers that aren't simply looking out for Google's best interests. If they became overly hostile, then I'm sure we'd see a fork at some point. I'm not saying they are perfect, but a lot of Chromium hate is unfounded and exaggerated.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      AMP waves “hello”
      - chromedev 6y ago
        AMP isn't specific to Chromium
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
> might become necessary to wrap browsers in an isolating sandbox or VM just to be sure they can't touch things they're not supposed to. Honestly I view this as a good idea regardless (it also helps contain exploits, in addition to official APIs). On Linux firejail is amazing for this (but also consider bubblewrap and others), and AFAIK sandboxie is a good choice on NT. No idea what sandboxing options are on Darwin - looks like it has something built in?