DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
62% Positive
Analyzed from 1504 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#webusb#device#security#browser#web#usb#drivers#access#having#chrome
Discussion (67 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Truly opening new possibilities, since I wouldn't have been comfortable running some sketchy script or local binary.
[1] https://web.minidisc.wiki/ [2] https://github.com/pvvx/ATC_MiThermometer
Comments like this scare me. Things look amazing when people with benevolent intentions are making interesting things, but as soon as someone with malevolent intentions does something that becomes the reason we can't have nice things people will start asking if this is something we should have actually done.
I just have no faith in humanity, and do not understand why we think this is a good idea to give a browser this much access to local system resources.
I can ship a cross-platform application that accesses a hardware device without having to deal with all the platform specifics, and with decent sandboxing of my driver.
I think one way to make it more "secure" against unwitting users would be to only support WebUSB for devices that have a WebUSB descriptor - would allow "origin" checking.
It was also nice trying out some RTL-SDR apps as soon as I got it without having to figure out how to build and install the Debian packages from source first.
It drives me nuts every time I have to switch from Firefox to Chrome to use webusb or webserial.
Whether we like the idea of the browser having access to usb or not, I at least like even less the idea of being forced to install and use Chrome for the same reasons as the bad old days of being forced to use IE.
Even for local apps it's starting to become common to ship the app in an interpreted language where the interpreter is a browser instead of say python & qt.
Right now that isn't the case and I can't remember last the time I had to uninstall untrustworthy native drivers.
A lot to lose, very little to gain?
Or some things aren't even available made using libusb. Think control applications for RGB lights in keyboard and mice. There's a certain manufacturer all but mandating installation of its slopware. Being able to provide all of this as WebUSB has advantages.
Curious what your floor is for 'trustworthy', a company with a US headquarters? Personally I feel sketched out by any silicon not made in Sweden or Japan, so, pretty much all of it.
(For the rare occurences that our customer is using 7 or earlier, we tell them to use zadig and be done with it.)
Hope every time you want to interface with a USB device.
but really most devices you want to interface to via webusb are CDC and DFU so.. problem solved?
1. Permission popups fatigue
2. Usually users select the apps they install, most sites are ephemeral. And yes, even with apps, especially on Android, people click through permission dialogs without looking because they are often too broad and confusing. With expected results such as exfiltrating user data.
"I know what I'm doing, and giving a random website access to my USB host is the right thing to do."
"I'm an idiot."
I hope Mozilla can eventually stop playing their silly role in the security theater of “but what if our users are dumb” and actually deliver those "power-user" features that would allow me to uninstall Chrome for good. Oh, and also, --app= flag please.
It's not security theater. If you go to Chromium settings -> Site settings -> permissions, and expand "additional permissions", you will see a total of 26 different permissions, each gated by the same generic "you want to use this" popup.
Permission popup fatigue is quite real, and not a security theater. And that's on top of the usual questions of implementation complexity etc.