4 ms·
That's not what the proposal would do -- you could still run your own JavaScript on websites. In fact, this is explicitly stated as a non-goal: https://github.c
by tylerhou 3y ago
That's not what the proposal would do -- you could still run your own JavaScript on websites. In fact, this is explicitly stated as a non-goal: https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md#non-goals https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/...
> Non-goals:
>
> - Enforce or interfere with browser functionality,
> including plugins and extensions.
- mg 3y agoHow would that work then? How can they achieve the goals stated in the introduction like ensuring that users who play a game don't cheat? How would this technology prevent one kind of automation but not the other? The site also gives an example that "this API will show that a user is operating a web client on a secure Android device". That would mean the site can lock me out, as I am not using Android. So I can't use any of my bookmarklets in my Firefox browser on my Debian machine anymore.
- h4x0rr 3y agoI bet they'll leave it out initially to avoid outcry, then allow websites to disable extensions when it's widespread