10 ms·

This kind of thing is why software I don't fully trust only runs in my browser. With how good the browser APIs have become, there is little reason to run nativ

This kind of thing is why software I don't fully trust only runs in my browser. With how good the browser APIs have become, there is little reason to run native apps, which nowadays are often just an outdated browser with a packaged web app anyways (Electron). Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and even Zoom have demonstrated that web is good enough if they want it. If you try to force me to install a native app, that's a strong signal that the app is going to do something against my interest. Given how aggressively Zoom has pushed the app, it was very clear to me that this thing is never going to hit my main machine (I think I have a VM somewhere that I used for a job interview that needed the more advanced features).

laurent92 5y ago
This kind of thing is why I use Whereby. No plugin is suggested to the user, it always runs in the browser, you can still share your screen and all. I’m afraid Zoom will upload my whole document folder to the internet “just in case you need to share them during the call, so we don’t consume bandwidth”…
Lucasoato 5y ago
The problem is that even if you just use the browser, it slowly pushes you to the native app... Browser version is extremely limited, you can't change some settings like the number of people shown in the same time.
periheli0n 5y ago
Isn't this just moving the problem, instead of solving it? The fact that browser APIs are so capable these days also means they enable almost the same opportunities for spying or creating other havoc, doesn't it? Especially if it means that I never close the browser because all my apps are running inside it.
- curt15 5y ago
  The sentiment that suspicious applications are best confined in the browser reflects the strong security reputation of modern browsers, which started with Chrome's extensive use of sandboxing more than ten years ago.
  - periheli0n 5y ago
    True, but then again this raises the question why a browser is needed for sandboxing; it could just as well be done on OS level. And it is done on MacOS, although I don't know whether the amount of sandboxing it does is comparable to what Chrome is doing. Another issue is that the network communication of a native app can be fenced in by e.g. Little Snitch, whereas fencing in an app running in Chrome is quite challenging. I'd have to apply any firewall rules to Chrome as a whole, instead of the web app. Perhaps there even exists a firewall as a Chrome extension that would allow that kind of thing; but then we quickly approach the terrain where Chrome becomes something like a VM where just everything runs in, just slower compared to native executables.
- vanviegen 5y ago
  Yes, but the browser at least indicates that a microphone or a camera is being used. Also you need to explicitly allow their use. And web apps cannot just go around accessing your files. It may not be perfect, but security-wise it's a lot better than running untrusted native applications.
  - periheli0n 5y ago
    OK, but to be fair, at least MacOS also asks for file access permissions, and indicates if the mic is being used with the orange dot that this thread is about. So when running zoom in the browser, it could still keep the mic open and listen, until closing the browser tab. That would be equivalent to closing the native app. I can see a small advantage when running in the browser, but it also comes with additional privacy risks. For example, if I want the browser to remember my settings for file and mic/camera access, I can't run it in a private tab, meaning that tracking via cookies and other techniques becomes a lot easier.
    - pvillano 5y ago
      there's a growing sentiment that desktop operating systems should adopt the security model of android/iOS... I don't know what it'l take for developer/user adoption though
  - numpad0 5y ago
    Current browsers indicate that a microphone or a camera is being used. Future browsers might not, or there could be technologies under different names going forward.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- roca 5y ago
  Not at all. Browsers have to assume Web content is malicious, and they behave accordingly.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    There are a whole lot of web APIs that were developed without a care for privacy/security, that are slowwwwly being mitigated by Mozilla's resistFingerprinting and Tor Browser. Browsers certainly do more to get sandboxing right than native apps, but they aren't a panacea.
entropie 5y ago
> there is little reason to run native apps, There are plenty. I like both worlds. Telegram for example is a good example of an unneeded desktop app that lives fine in the browser ( web.telegram.org ), multiple versions, regular updates, platform independent. On the other side there is signal, which forces to use a very shitty desktop app (or maybe I have not found a better yet). It just sucks. On linux I have no issues installing "native" apps whatsoever. My editor (emacs), cad software, music player (!) - sure spotify works, but I like my network transparent MPD way more. I could go a lot farhther. Iam curious about (cloud-)gaming since I actually was very suprised how good it can work. Edit: Why is this downvoted? What am I doing wrong?
- neop1x 5y ago
  Telegram desktop app is awesome. For me it is a great example of a native app. J ahd zero troubles with it. It is fast, it doesn't consume a lot of RAM and no Electron is bundled. I am glad to see someone is still developing native apps.
  - jcelerier 5y ago
    It's built with Qt :)
  - entropie 5y ago
    > Telegram desktop app is awesome. I think I tried it at one point and didn't dislike it. I multiboot linux and windows and from day one it felt very comfortable to have a sticky telegram tab in my eternal browser session on both OS that behave the same.
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  I've been using GeForce Now quite a bit to play games that do not run on my laptop. The required internet speed is probably out of reach for most non-urbanites at the moment, but the concept does not really require a Native App, since it is basically video streaming with interactivity, and could probably easily move to the browser in the future. Cloud gaming is one of the technologies I'm quite unsure about, it could become the de-facto standard in the coming decade, or it could remain a niche, all depending on consumer preferences and network infrastructure.
trasz 5y ago
And give your browser access to microphone and camera? That doesn’t sound wise from the security point of view either.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
I read that some companies do not allow the use of Zoom.
the_other 5y ago
> If you try to force me to install a native app, that's a strong signal that the app is going to do something against my interest. That's a really sorry state of affairs. We should be able to trust our OS to work only towards our best interests. To me a web app represents a complete lack of user control over the content & metadata created by the user; my expectation for a desktop app is the opposite. The signal I take that an app is going to do something shitty is the level to which the vendor asks/suggests/begs me to install the app. If they don't push it (other and advertising it for sale), I'm more likely to trust it. If they push it ("download our app for a better experience"), it's obviously on their side more than mine.
- periheli0n 5y ago
  Reddit as a point in case. They deliberately break their mobile web version subtly to coerce users to install their app. Shudder.
  - dasKrokodil 5y ago
    I agree with you, except for the word 'subtly'. It's not subtle at all.
    - periheli0n 5y ago
      Well, it still works, but the UX is terrible, and usually one has to reload the page after something like 20 clicks or so because it stops responding or UX elements disappear. So yeah, not really that subtle, I agree.
      - edude03 5y ago
        For me recently it hasn't worked at all for example - I'm signed into reddit on the webapp, I click a link on the front page, it renders the page, then overlays a popup saying "this page is only available in the app" and despite having the app, clicking "open in app" takes me to the apple store, so really I can only reliably use reddit if I start my reddit "session" in the app
billpg 5y ago
If you ignore the installer download and keep (not even) trying and failing to run it that way, eventually the Zoom website will relent and offer to take you to the JS-based system.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  At least for some time and some accounts, the link only showed up if the owner of the meeting had enabled it in some three-layers-deep menu. I assume that for enterprise customers it's enabled by default though because they realize that making paying customers fail to have their meetings is not a winning strategy.
rlpb 5y ago
I think this is an indication that app sandboxing is not good enough. It should be possible for the user to have control over everything necessary. The light that warns that the microphone is being used should also have functionality to disable it and to make the app "Request every time" or "Only when app is fullscreen" or similar. And if that is actually all happening, then sandboxing is working as necessary and therefore there is no actual trust issue, because the user doesn't have to trust the app anyway.
- worewood 5y ago
  Adding to that, IMO there should also be an option that feeds bogus data to the app so it can't know if a resource is blocked. So many apps just refuse to work if you deny them the resources they don't need
  - RulerOf 5y ago
    That's a usability nightmare though. Imagine a user who clicked the wrong thing, then they complain that their mic is broken and plays analog TV hellscape sounds on conference calls. Edit: Not saying I wouldn't use it myself, though.
  - JiNCMG 5y ago
    LOL That would be nice!!! Feed an Animated Gif to the Webcam and Whale Noise to the mic!
- JiNCMG 5y ago
  Objective-See has a utility to do this called OverSight. It's a firewall for your webcams and mics. BUT do not mention this in the Zoom forums as it will be taken down.
jevoten 5y ago
It's long past the time that native apps should get the same or better kind of sandboxing and access controls that browsers or Android provide. Perhaps a user-friendly wrapper around AppArmor/SELinux.
thereddaikon 5y ago
I take the exact opposite stance. I hate browser based apps and prefer native apps. Browser apps are great at stealing your data because the browser makes it easy to. But with a native app I can better control access to system resources, even craft application layer firewall rules to control when it can communicate with the outside world. As a browser app I can only control the browser's traffic in aggregate, which is far less useful.
jlarocco 5y ago
I have a different take away. This type of thing is why I only run software from the Debian repos or that I build myself. On machines I own, anyway. I personally still think the UI of web apps are generally terrible, and though they may not be listening to the microphone, spend 10 minutes using uMatrix and it's pretty clear they're spying on you and sending information all over the place.
stronglikedan 5y ago
Yup. Say what you want about Teams and Meet, but at lease they run in the browser, and relatively well, for my use cases anyway.
nyberg 5y ago
Sounds like WASI might be the ideal to get around this in the near future given that it's also capability based similar to how browsers guard specific functions.
robertlagrant 5y ago
Can you use the browser version to do screen sharing? My impression was you can't.

laurent92 5y ago

This kind of thing is why I use Whereby. No plugin is suggested to the user, it always runs in the browser, you can still share your screen and all. I’m afraid Zoom will upload my whole document folder to the internet “just in case you need to share them during the call, so we don’t consume bandwidth”…

Lucasoato 5y ago

The problem is that even if you just use the browser, it slowly pushes you to the native app... Browser version is extremely limited, you can't change some settings like the number of people shown in the same time.

periheli0n 5y ago

Isn't this just moving the problem, instead of solving it? The fact that browser APIs are so capable these days also means they enable almost the same opportunities for spying or creating other havoc, doesn't it? Especially if it means that I never close the browser because all my apps are running inside it.

curt15 5y ago
The sentiment that suspicious applications are best confined in the browser reflects the strong security reputation of modern browsers, which started with Chrome's extensive use of sandboxing more than ten years ago.
- periheli0n 5y ago
  True, but then again this raises the question why a browser is needed for sandboxing; it could just as well be done on OS level. And it is done on MacOS, although I don't know whether the amount of sandboxing it does is comparable to what Chrome is doing. Another issue is that the network communication of a native app can be fenced in by e.g. Little Snitch, whereas fencing in an app running in Chrome is quite challenging. I'd have to apply any firewall rules to Chrome as a whole, instead of the web app. Perhaps there even exists a firewall as a Chrome extension that would allow that kind of thing; but then we quickly approach the terrain where Chrome becomes something like a VM where just everything runs in, just slower compared to native executables.
vanviegen 5y ago
Yes, but the browser at least indicates that a microphone or a camera is being used. Also you need to explicitly allow their use. And web apps cannot just go around accessing your files. It may not be perfect, but security-wise it's a lot better than running untrusted native applications.
- periheli0n 5y ago
  OK, but to be fair, at least MacOS also asks for file access permissions, and indicates if the mic is being used with the orange dot that this thread is about. So when running zoom in the browser, it could still keep the mic open and listen, until closing the browser tab. That would be equivalent to closing the native app. I can see a small advantage when running in the browser, but it also comes with additional privacy risks. For example, if I want the browser to remember my settings for file and mic/camera access, I can't run it in a private tab, meaning that tracking via cookies and other techniques becomes a lot easier.
  - pvillano 5y ago
    there's a growing sentiment that desktop operating systems should adopt the security model of android/iOS... I don't know what it'l take for developer/user adoption though
- numpad0 5y ago
  Current browsers indicate that a microphone or a camera is being used. Future browsers might not, or there could be technologies under different names going forward.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
roca 5y ago
Not at all. Browsers have to assume Web content is malicious, and they behave accordingly.
- mindslight 5y ago
  There are a whole lot of web APIs that were developed without a care for privacy/security, that are slowwwwly being mitigated by Mozilla's resistFingerprinting and Tor Browser. Browsers certainly do more to get sandboxing right than native apps, but they aren't a panacea.

entropie 5y ago

> there is little reason to run native apps, There are plenty. I like both worlds. Telegram for example is a good example of an unneeded desktop app that lives fine in the browser ( web.telegram.org ), multiple versions, regular updates, platform independent. On the other side there is signal, which forces to use a very shitty desktop app (or maybe I have not found a better yet). It just sucks. On linux I have no issues installing "native" apps whatsoever. My editor (emacs), cad software, music player (!) - sure spotify works, but I like my network transparent MPD way more. I could go a lot farhther. Iam curious about (cloud-)gaming since I actually was very suprised how good it can work. Edit: Why is this downvoted? What am I doing wrong?

neop1x 5y ago
Telegram desktop app is awesome. For me it is a great example of a native app. J ahd zero troubles with it. It is fast, it doesn't consume a lot of RAM and no Electron is bundled. I am glad to see someone is still developing native apps.
- jcelerier 5y ago
  It's built with Qt :)
- entropie 5y ago
  > Telegram desktop app is awesome. I think I tried it at one point and didn't dislike it. I multiboot linux and windows and from day one it felt very comfortable to have a sticky telegram tab in my eternal browser session on both OS that behave the same.
bakuninsbart 5y ago
I've been using GeForce Now quite a bit to play games that do not run on my laptop. The required internet speed is probably out of reach for most non-urbanites at the moment, but the concept does not really require a Native App, since it is basically video streaming with interactivity, and could probably easily move to the browser in the future. Cloud gaming is one of the technologies I'm quite unsure about, it could become the de-facto standard in the coming decade, or it could remain a niche, all depending on consumer preferences and network infrastructure.

trasz 5y ago

And give your browser access to microphone and camera? That doesn’t sound wise from the security point of view either.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

I read that some companies do not allow the use of Zoom.

the_other 5y ago

> If you try to force me to install a native app, that's a strong signal that the app is going to do something against my interest. That's a really sorry state of affairs. We should be able to trust our OS to work only towards our best interests. To me a web app represents a complete lack of user control over the content & metadata created by the user; my expectation for a desktop app is the opposite. The signal I take that an app is going to do something shitty is the level to which the vendor asks/suggests/begs me to install the app. If they don't push it (other and advertising it for sale), I'm more likely to trust it. If they push it ("download our app for a better experience"), it's obviously on their side more than mine.

periheli0n 5y ago
Reddit as a point in case. They deliberately break their mobile web version subtly to coerce users to install their app. Shudder.
- dasKrokodil 5y ago
  I agree with you, except for the word 'subtly'. It's not subtle at all.
  - periheli0n 5y ago
    Well, it still works, but the UX is terrible, and usually one has to reload the page after something like 20 clicks or so because it stops responding or UX elements disappear. So yeah, not really that subtle, I agree.
    - edude03 5y ago
      For me recently it hasn't worked at all for example - I'm signed into reddit on the webapp, I click a link on the front page, it renders the page, then overlays a popup saying "this page is only available in the app" and despite having the app, clicking "open in app" takes me to the apple store, so really I can only reliably use reddit if I start my reddit "session" in the app

billpg 5y ago

If you ignore the installer download and keep (not even) trying and failing to run it that way, eventually the Zoom website will relent and offer to take you to the JS-based system.

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
At least for some time and some accounts, the link only showed up if the owner of the meeting had enabled it in some three-layers-deep menu. I assume that for enterprise customers it's enabled by default though because they realize that making paying customers fail to have their meetings is not a winning strategy.

rlpb 5y ago

I think this is an indication that app sandboxing is not good enough. It should be possible for the user to have control over everything necessary. The light that warns that the microphone is being used should also have functionality to disable it and to make the app "Request every time" or "Only when app is fullscreen" or similar. And if that is actually all happening, then sandboxing is working as necessary and therefore there is no actual trust issue, because the user doesn't have to trust the app anyway.

worewood 5y ago
Adding to that, IMO there should also be an option that feeds bogus data to the app so it can't know if a resource is blocked. So many apps just refuse to work if you deny them the resources they don't need
- RulerOf 5y ago
  That's a usability nightmare though. Imagine a user who clicked the wrong thing, then they complain that their mic is broken and plays analog TV hellscape sounds on conference calls. Edit: Not saying I wouldn't use it myself, though.
- JiNCMG 5y ago
  LOL That would be nice!!! Feed an Animated Gif to the Webcam and Whale Noise to the mic!
JiNCMG 5y ago
Objective-See has a utility to do this called OverSight. It's a firewall for your webcams and mics. BUT do not mention this in the Zoom forums as it will be taken down.

jevoten 5y ago

It's long past the time that native apps should get the same or better kind of sandboxing and access controls that browsers or Android provide. Perhaps a user-friendly wrapper around AppArmor/SELinux.

thereddaikon 5y ago

I take the exact opposite stance. I hate browser based apps and prefer native apps. Browser apps are great at stealing your data because the browser makes it easy to. But with a native app I can better control access to system resources, even craft application layer firewall rules to control when it can communicate with the outside world. As a browser app I can only control the browser's traffic in aggregate, which is far less useful.

jlarocco 5y ago

I have a different take away. This type of thing is why I only run software from the Debian repos or that I build myself. On machines I own, anyway. I personally still think the UI of web apps are generally terrible, and though they may not be listening to the microphone, spend 10 minutes using uMatrix and it's pretty clear they're spying on you and sending information all over the place.

stronglikedan 5y ago

Yup. Say what you want about Teams and Meet, but at lease they run in the browser, and relatively well, for my use cases anyway.

nyberg 5y ago

Sounds like WASI might be the ideal to get around this in the near future given that it's also capability based similar to how browsers guard specific functions.

robertlagrant 5y ago

Can you use the browser version to do screen sharing? My impression was you can't.