4 ms·

This might seem crazy, but I can imagine a world where the first time my browser encounters a file of some new format it gives me the option to download a codec

by 13of40 3y ago

This might seem crazy, but I can imagine a world where the first time my browser encounters a file of some new format it gives me the option to download a codec to render it and it doesn't matter if it's google software or not, just that it's signed with a trusted cert.

cesarb 3y ago
> I can imagine a world where the first time my browser encounters a file of some new format it gives me the option to download a codec to render it That world existed, in the 90s and early 2000s, and it was called "ActiveX". The codebase= attribute of the <object> element exists for that use case. It sucked, for two major reasons: first of all, it was a reliable way to get malware into user's machines (being "signed with a trusted cert" doesn't help when all you need for a trusted cert is money and/or hacking a trusted software publisher). Second, it was very Windows-specific, and a significant obstacle to the adoption of alternative operating systems, hardware architectures, and browsers.
- 13of40 3y ago
  I don't think it was the idea behind ActiveX that made it suck, it was the implementation. Back when we were making Windows XP I found a ton of exploits where you could load an arbitrary COM component from a web page and buffer overrun it. If the same thing was based on modern sandboxed IL it would be a lot safer and more portable between platforms.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Activex did way more than render things.
arp242 3y ago
We tried the whole plugin thing with NPAPI and ActiveX, and it was a never-ending source of security holes. This is one of those things that sound nice, but there's a lot of practical caveats, and in reality it would all be pretty complex. Who would provide the "trusted certs"? How do you decide between a "good and safe plugin" and "not so good and unsafe plugin"? How do you update these decoders? etc.

by 13of40 3y ago

cesarb 3y ago

> I can imagine a world where the first time my browser encounters a file of some new format it gives me the option to download a codec to render it That world existed, in the 90s and early 2000s, and it was called "ActiveX". The codebase= attribute of the <object> element exists for that use case. It sucked, for two major reasons: first of all, it was a reliable way to get malware into user's machines (being "signed with a trusted cert" doesn't help when all you need for a trusted cert is money and/or hacking a trusted software publisher). Second, it was very Windows-specific, and a significant obstacle to the adoption of alternative operating systems, hardware architectures, and browsers.

13of40 3y ago
I don't think it was the idea behind ActiveX that made it suck, it was the implementation. Back when we were making Windows XP I found a ton of exploits where you could load an arbitrary COM component from a web page and buffer overrun it. If the same thing was based on modern sandboxed IL it would be a lot safer and more portable between platforms.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Activex did way more than render things.

arp242 3y ago

We tried the whole plugin thing with NPAPI and ActiveX, and it was a never-ending source of security holes. This is one of those things that sound nice, but there's a lot of practical caveats, and in reality it would all be pretty complex. Who would provide the "trusted certs"? How do you decide between a "good and safe plugin" and "not so good and unsafe plugin"? How do you update these decoders? etc.