3 ms·

I think chrome developers probably do care a lot about security (and performance and privacy). There is a big conflict of interest because chrome is developed b

I think chrome developers probably do care a lot about security (and performance and privacy). There is a big conflict of interest because chrome is developed by an enormous on-line advertising company and online ads, ad-blockers, and malware pretending to be ad-blockers may cause security, performance, or privacy problems. It is an interesting thought experiment to wonder what chrome would be like if it were more independent, but I think it is wrong to assume that the developers are deliberately malicious or uncaring about users’ interests.

colordrops 5y ago
> It is an interesting thought experiment to wonder what chrome would be like if it were more independent Firefox? Brave?
rektide 5y ago
it just seems so trivial to me too build a small interpreted system that circumvents the "no dynamic JavaScript" rule. so so so trivial. so the only people hurt are the regular humans. there was a simpler example on hn within the last week or two, but for example, json-rules-engine demonstrates how json might be a dynamic program, without ever needing to call eval or Function dynamic code: https://github.com/CacheControl/json-rules-engine https://github.com/CacheControl/json-rules-engine this would need to be extended with some html constructs. which is certainly possible. or take evaljs and preload in some html functions! > You might be working in a JavaScript environment where eval() isn't allowed (and you have a genuinely good reason why you want to use it). Maybe this'll slip under the radar. https://github.com/marten-de-vries/evaljs https://github.com/marten-de-vries/evaljs surely the people pitching these so called security measures grok just how many dump trucks of nonsense these so called protections they offer us are. about a week ago maybe even it would have sounded ok. but since that time, we've had a big announcement that wizer can now run spidermonkey js engine in webassembly. there's industrial grade js machinery we can run, free from these constraints, nested inside the web platform. with that, this v3 announcement is a week too late to hold even a drop of water. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27370138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27370138 I believe they want to do something good too. but they are ineffectual & doing amazing amounts of damage in their grasp to give us this pretend fake security.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  If you can make a proof-of-concept, that'd be a good thing to share on HN.
- rektide 5y ago
  I have suggested using Wizer's spidermonkey wasm to the Tampermonkey "v3" issue[1]. [1] https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issuecomment-857838249 https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issu...
- dotproto 5y ago
  > it just seems so trivial to me too build a small interpreted system that circumvents the "no dynamic JavaScript" rule While it's possible to build an interpreter in JS, doing so in an extension is an unambiguous violation of the Chrome Web Store Developer Program Policy. The goal isn't to make abuse impossible so much as to limit potential attack vectors in order to make enforcement more tractable.
  - rektide 5y ago
    And now Google is behaving like Apple, in exactly the same way they rightfully criticize Apple, of being platform hegemonists. But thank you for sharing. I'll try to find this policy. I guess I wouldn't be surprised.
    - rektide 5y ago
      ah you have posted in the thread, telling us how the policy forbids creativity & interpreters (as apple does) but promising in some months you have some idea how maybe perhaps everything might not be as shit awful terrible awful as it sounds right now, how perhaps the general user might be given some break, not totally fucked over like it sounds like right now. in some months. you also call our concern misinformation, but your words in that thread seem to come as a surprise to everyone, to the tampermonkey folks, to myself, & there seem to be no public indicators that there is more to this story than the clampdown this headline & post indicate. I hope the future is indeed not so frakked as you say it might be. I am very very worried, and have seen few positive signs, hitherto your post, which is an unknown small hope against this grimness.
ROARosen 5y ago
> I think it is wrong to assume that the developers are deliberately malicious or uncaring about users’ interests They are not 'uncaring' for users interests, they are just more caring to their company's interests than to those of their users.

colordrops 5y ago

> It is an interesting thought experiment to wonder what chrome would be like if it were more independent Firefox? Brave?

rektide 5y ago

it just seems so trivial to me too build a small interpreted system that circumvents the "no dynamic JavaScript" rule. so so so trivial. so the only people hurt are the regular humans. there was a simpler example on hn within the last week or two, but for example, json-rules-engine demonstrates how json might be a dynamic program, without ever needing to call eval or Function dynamic code: https://github.com/CacheControl/json-rules-engine https://github.com/CacheControl/json-rules-engine this would need to be extended with some html constructs. which is certainly possible. or take evaljs and preload in some html functions! > You might be working in a JavaScript environment where eval() isn't allowed (and you have a genuinely good reason why you want to use it). Maybe this'll slip under the radar. https://github.com/marten-de-vries/evaljs https://github.com/marten-de-vries/evaljs surely the people pitching these so called security measures grok just how many dump trucks of nonsense these so called protections they offer us are. about a week ago maybe even it would have sounded ok. but since that time, we've had a big announcement that wizer can now run spidermonkey js engine in webassembly. there's industrial grade js machinery we can run, free from these constraints, nested inside the web platform. with that, this v3 announcement is a week too late to hold even a drop of water. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27370138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27370138 I believe they want to do something good too. but they are ineffectual & doing amazing amounts of damage in their grasp to give us this pretend fake security.

shadowgovt 5y ago
If you can make a proof-of-concept, that'd be a good thing to share on HN.
rektide 5y ago
I have suggested using Wizer's spidermonkey wasm to the Tampermonkey "v3" issue[1]. [1] https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issuecomment-857838249 https://github.com/Tampermonkey/tampermonkey/issues/644#issu...
dotproto 5y ago
> it just seems so trivial to me too build a small interpreted system that circumvents the "no dynamic JavaScript" rule While it's possible to build an interpreter in JS, doing so in an extension is an unambiguous violation of the Chrome Web Store Developer Program Policy. The goal isn't to make abuse impossible so much as to limit potential attack vectors in order to make enforcement more tractable.
- rektide 5y ago
  And now Google is behaving like Apple, in exactly the same way they rightfully criticize Apple, of being platform hegemonists. But thank you for sharing. I'll try to find this policy. I guess I wouldn't be surprised.
  - rektide 5y ago
    ah you have posted in the thread, telling us how the policy forbids creativity & interpreters (as apple does) but promising in some months you have some idea how maybe perhaps everything might not be as shit awful terrible awful as it sounds right now, how perhaps the general user might be given some break, not totally fucked over like it sounds like right now. in some months. you also call our concern misinformation, but your words in that thread seem to come as a surprise to everyone, to the tampermonkey folks, to myself, & there seem to be no public indicators that there is more to this story than the clampdown this headline & post indicate. I hope the future is indeed not so frakked as you say it might be. I am very very worried, and have seen few positive signs, hitherto your post, which is an unknown small hope against this grimness.

ROARosen 5y ago

> I think it is wrong to assume that the developers are deliberately malicious or uncaring about users’ interests They are not 'uncaring' for users interests, they are just more caring to their company's interests than to those of their users.