3 ms·

So websites can now nag users to allow access to the root of their local disk and then read all their files and settings, all their SSH keys and other passwords

by ptx 4mo ago

So websites can now nag users to allow access to the root of their local disk and then read all their files and settings, all their SSH keys and other passwords? From what I gather from the docs [1], this API gives you a FileSystemDirectoryHandle object, and then you just call getDirectoryHandle() on that to recursively read the the entire filesystem. The spec [2] has some vague suggestions about blacklisting certain particularly sensitive files, which doesn't seem reassuring. [1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/web-apis/file-system-access https://developer.chrome.com/docs/capabilities/web-apis/file... [2] https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/#privacy-wide-access https://wicg.github.io/file-system-access/#privacy-wide-acce...

Ajedi32 4mo ago
Root directory would be on that blacklist for sure. Those "vague suggestions" actually seem to include some pretty specific examples. > A user’s entire "home" directory. Individual files and directories inside the home directory should still be allowed, but user agents should not generally let users give blanket access to the entire directory.
- EnergyAmy 4mo ago
  That's not at all specific. What individual files and directories?
  - Ajedi32 4mo ago
    All of them, unless they're also on the list of examples to exclude (like the Downloads folder). I think the point is that as long as the user is sharing things on purpose and not by accident, it should be allowed. Selecting the root of the home directory would probably share a lot of things the user didn't really intend to share (because a lot of apps just dump random config files and stuff in there), but if they specifically select a subfolder they probably have a good idea of what that folder contains.
jaffathecake 4mo ago
> So websites can now nag users to allow access to the root of their local disk No, Chrome doesn't allow this. Here's a simple demo: https://output.jsbin.com/kekekac/quiet https://output.jsbin.com/kekekac/quiet - note that you can't select root, Downloads etc.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- move-on-by 4mo ago
  Ah yes, totally secure. I’m sure there will be no unforeseen problems or bypasses.
  - streptomycin 4mo ago
    It's been in Chrome for 6 years and I'm not aware of any problems it's caused.
    - croes 4mo ago
      Yet. It’s not hard to imagine a case where it is a bad idea to give the browser access to the whole content of a directory. There is a reason why it’s Chromium browsers only, don’t you think?
      - rcxdude 4mo ago
        Just because a problem is not hard to imagine it doesn't mean that the problem is actually a problem in practice. It is worth asking if there are any signs of it existing for real.
        croes 4mo ago
        I hear a lot of this "nothing has happened so far" from people who DUI before their first crash and people who use the same password on multiple sites before their first credential stuffing hack
cnr 4mo ago
Let's not forget that, at the same time, Google forces every developer of any Android app to register in the Google database using an ID scan, otherwise no one can install it. All for the sake of "dear user safety".
superjan 4mo ago
Is the camera roll excluded? I bet I am not the only one who has a passport picture in there. I don’t know about other people’s camera rolls, but I bet it is occasionally more saucy than mine. (Sorry for not testing. Chrome-hater)

by ptx 4mo ago

Ajedi32 4mo ago

Root directory would be on that blacklist for sure. Those "vague suggestions" actually seem to include some pretty specific examples. > A user’s entire "home" directory. Individual files and directories inside the home directory should still be allowed, but user agents should not generally let users give blanket access to the entire directory.

EnergyAmy 4mo ago
That's not at all specific. What individual files and directories?
- Ajedi32 4mo ago
  All of them, unless they're also on the list of examples to exclude (like the Downloads folder). I think the point is that as long as the user is sharing things on purpose and not by accident, it should be allowed. Selecting the root of the home directory would probably share a lot of things the user didn't really intend to share (because a lot of apps just dump random config files and stuff in there), but if they specifically select a subfolder they probably have a good idea of what that folder contains.

jaffathecake 4mo ago

> So websites can now nag users to allow access to the root of their local disk No, Chrome doesn't allow this. Here's a simple demo: https://output.jsbin.com/kekekac/quiet https://output.jsbin.com/kekekac/quiet - note that you can't select root, Downloads etc.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
move-on-by 4mo ago
Ah yes, totally secure. I’m sure there will be no unforeseen problems or bypasses.
- streptomycin 4mo ago
  It's been in Chrome for 6 years and I'm not aware of any problems it's caused.
  - croes 4mo ago
    Yet. It’s not hard to imagine a case where it is a bad idea to give the browser access to the whole content of a directory. There is a reason why it’s Chromium browsers only, don’t you think?
    - rcxdude 4mo ago
      Just because a problem is not hard to imagine it doesn't mean that the problem is actually a problem in practice. It is worth asking if there are any signs of it existing for real.
      - croes 4mo ago
        I hear a lot of this "nothing has happened so far" from people who DUI before their first crash and people who use the same password on multiple sites before their first credential stuffing hack

cnr 4mo ago

Let's not forget that, at the same time, Google forces every developer of any Android app to register in the Google database using an ID scan, otherwise no one can install it. All for the sake of "dear user safety".

superjan 4mo ago

Is the camera roll excluded? I bet I am not the only one who has a passport picture in there. I don’t know about other people’s camera rolls, but I bet it is occasionally more saucy than mine. (Sorry for not testing. Chrome-hater)