@[email protected]
Honestly, it’s bonkers that the standard, default approach for all mainstream browsers is to let every random website in the world run any arbitrary code it wants on your computer.
This, this, 1000 times this! That is exactly how I feel and was hoping to convey.
@[email protected]
Yeah, they usually attempt to sandbox it, but still. Sometimes sandboxes can be escaped. And sometimes the code can do significant harm while still inside its sandbox.
Yes, defense-in-depth includes minimizing threats rather than simply relying on protections. It shouldn’t be necessary to lower one’s shields constantly, and it’s better to avoid doing so if possible, from a security & privacy perspective.
@[email protected]
Bugs exists. But JavaScript running in the browser have, theoretically, little access to anything. […]
The risk of allowing JavaScript on a website is more tied to the site data, or tracking. […]
It doesn’t mean every site needs JavaScript, but having this enabled by default is not that big of a security risk for the system. […]
This reminds me of an interesting phenomenon: Some security-oriented people praise the security of the surveillance-advertising corporation’s browser engine (chromium), while proclaiming that gecko-based browsers (firefox) are unusable due to inferior security. Yet the main security threat I see is that fucking surveillance-advertising corporation which spreads unvetted and often malicious ads around the web without a care in the world.
Person A: “chromium-based browsers have superior security”
Person B: “i use firefox-based browsers exclusively”
Person A: “outrageous. it’s got inferior security”
Person B: “i don’t allow scripts”
Person A: “javascripts aren’t a major security concern”
Person B: “firefox with scripts denied is more secure than chromium with scripts allowed”
Person A: “javascripts are required for the modern web”
Person B: “untrue, as evidenced by the fact that i access the modern web with scripts denied”
@[email protected]
Sure, it’s bonkers for you, but an alternative browser that can’t immediately show a website that works perfectly well in Chrome wouldn’t get much of a user base.
I think the main point is about what is default. People have been and continue to be trained by the defaults (tyranny of the default), and in this case they are trained to expect sites to utilize scripts, which is (imo) unhealthy for society. It would be better if scripts were denied by default and the user could allow them per-site with a single click, similar to how sites will ask the user to allow notifications or location services which the user is able to allow or deny.
Sure, most users simply allow everything. But kids are curious and would be more likely to read and understand such things if presented with the options, and that could translate into a more-informed adult population with better security practices. And overall, I think that’d make for a healthier and happier society which doesn’t continue to crumble into worse and worse outcomes.
If the default were to deny scripts, sites would have to at least look somewhat presentable without the scripts, so as to ask the user to enable them. And my hope is that people would prefer the sites that don’t pester them for permissions.
@[email protected]
Just another piece of evidence that people care more about convenience than privacy, sadly. People aren’t willing to put up with a single broken website
Au contraire. Most people put up with broken sites all the time. The problem is that those people generally aren’t aware that the sites are broken, because they’re also unaware of the concept of allowing/denying javascripts. If they denied javascripts by default, they’d notice that most of the sites they access are actually broken sites. The ones that function without javascripts are the unbroken ones.
Oh, you made that one? I actually saved it because it’s legitimately helpful. A lot of tier lists really just reflect a person’s preference, but I liked how you grouped yours by category. I’ll be referencing it as I explore more distros
@[email protected]
Most websites from when I was a kid did not need JavaScript. Heck, they didn’t even have any JavaScript on many of them! No CSS either, just HTML and images (which were very slow to load on dialup).
This, this, 1000 times this! That is exactly how I feel and was hoping to convey.
Yes, defense-in-depth includes minimizing threats rather than simply relying on protections. It shouldn’t be necessary to lower one’s shields constantly, and it’s better to avoid doing so if possible, from a security & privacy perspective.
This reminds me of an interesting phenomenon: Some security-oriented people praise the security of the surveillance-advertising corporation’s browser engine (chromium), while proclaiming that gecko-based browsers (firefox) are unusable due to inferior security. Yet the main security threat I see is that fucking surveillance-advertising corporation which spreads unvetted and often malicious ads around the web without a care in the world.
Person A: “chromium-based browsers have superior security” Person B: “i use firefox-based browsers exclusively” Person A: “outrageous. it’s got inferior security” Person B: “i don’t allow scripts” Person A: “javascripts aren’t a major security concern” Person B: “firefox with scripts denied is more secure than chromium with scripts allowed” Person A: “javascripts are required for the modern web” Person B: “untrue, as evidenced by the fact that i access the modern web with scripts denied”
checkmate ♟️
I think the main point is about what is default. People have been and continue to be trained by the defaults (tyranny of the default), and in this case they are trained to expect sites to utilize scripts, which is (imo) unhealthy for society. It would be better if scripts were denied by default and the user could allow them per-site with a single click, similar to how sites will ask the user to allow notifications or location services which the user is able to allow or deny.
Sure, most users simply allow everything. But kids are curious and would be more likely to read and understand such things if presented with the options, and that could translate into a more-informed adult population with better security practices. And overall, I think that’d make for a healthier and happier society which doesn’t continue to crumble into worse and worse outcomes.
If the default were to deny scripts, sites would have to at least look somewhat presentable without the scripts, so as to ask the user to enable them. And my hope is that people would prefer the sites that don’t pester them for permissions.
Au contraire. Most people put up with broken sites all the time. The problem is that those people generally aren’t aware that the sites are broken, because they’re also unaware of the concept of allowing/denying javascripts. If they denied javascripts by default, they’d notice that most of the sites they access are actually broken sites. The ones that function without javascripts are the unbroken ones.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Oh, you made that one? I actually saved it because it’s legitimately helpful. A lot of tier lists really just reflect a person’s preference, but I liked how you grouped yours by category. I’ll be referencing it as I explore more distros
Simpler times
Removed by mod
Moi aussi
I’ll have to check that out one day.