2 ms·
From "Chrome 130: Direct Sockets API" (2024-09) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41418718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41418718 : > I can understan
by westurner 2y ago
From "Chrome 130: Direct Sockets API" (2024-09) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41418718 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41418718 :
> I can understand FF's position on Direct Sockets [...] Without support for Direct Sockets in Firefox, developers have JSONP, HTTP, WebSockets, and WebRTC.
> Typically today, a user must agree to install a package that uses L3 sockets before they're using sockets other than DNS, HTTP, and mDNS. HTTP Signed Exchanges is one way to sign webapps.
But HTTP Signed Exchanges is cancelled, so arbitrary code with sockets if one ad network?
...
> Mozilla's position is that Direct Sockets would be unsafe and inconsiderate given existing cross-origin expectations FWIU: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/431 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/431
> Direct Sockets API > Permissions Policy: https://wicg.github.io/direct-sockets/#permissions-policy https://wicg.github.io/direct-sockets/#permissions-policy
> docs/explainer.md >> Security Considerations :
https://github.com/WICG/direct-sockets/blob/main/docs/explainer.md#security-considerations https://github.com/WICG/direct-sockets/blob/main/docs/explai...