3 ms·
I think the idea is that a browser needs to do this conversion to display images, so you'd be writing a http client that will run server-side and process each u
by gopher_space 2y ago
I think the idea is that a browser needs to do this conversion to display images, so you'd be writing a http client that will run server-side and process each uploaded file as if it were a http response. It'd need to be transmissible via screenshot at this point, right?
- samus 2y agoBy running a web browser on the server you are at square one again: running the encoder on the server, which is risky.
- gopher_space 2y agoIn this case isn't the browser decoding the image and drawing a bitmap? That sounds more like a critical vulnerability in e.g. Chrome. In my mind the chain of events looks like: - Alice uploads an image file to Bob's file server - Charlie's image converter server invokes a local browser with the address of the file on Bob's server, resulting in a .bmp (or .png? a little out of my element here) saved to Charlie's server. - Doris can now pull images from Charlie's server knowing they've been vetted by a major browser. Does that make sense?
- samus 2y agoYes, which outsources the problem to Charlie. Charlie has to firewall and lockdown that browser as much as possible to reduce the risk of Alice pwning Charlie, else Charlie's server could (among other things) be made to taint all output files. Browsers are not magically immune, they also just call decoder libraries.