4 ms·

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 opportuni

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.

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.