And since you won’t be able to modify web pages, it will also mean the end of customization, either for looks (ie. DarkReader, Stylus), conveniance (ie. Tampermonkey) or accessibility.

The community feedback is… interesting to say the least.

  • vvvvv@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Basically, it would allow websites to only serve users who comply with website requirements (i.e., no extensions, no ad blockers, only Chrome-based, whatever) whatever these requirements are.

    You (your browser) go to a website, example.com, which requires attestation. So you must go to an attestation server and attest your device/browser combo (by telling the attestation server whatever information it requires). If the attestation server thinks you are trustworthy, it gives you an integrity token that you pass to example.com, and then you can see example.com. The website knows which attestation server issued your integrity token, so you can’t create your own.

    So no extra software means no attestation server would attest you; means you can’t see example.com. End of story. It’s the same as the current “your browser is not supported” window, only you can’t get around it by changing the user agent.

    As usual with these initiatives, bullshit is spread across different specs - this spec by itself implies that any number of attestation servers can exist, and they can check whatever they want, and no browser should be excluded, etc., etc., but practical implementation would probably check installed extensions, etc.

    • Araozu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wouldn’t spoofing work? Like, if the browser just sends “yes, no extensions, adblock, blah blah” then how would the attestation server know if that’s true? Or does it require signed binaries, or some special hardware?

      • vvvvv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is conveniently left out of the speck. Attestation server may require signed binary on a client system, it may require whatever it wants really, because why not? It’s a website who decides to trust attestation server or not.

      • count_duckula@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Depends on if they used cryptographic signatures. Those would be impossible to spoof because any change in the client would change the hash completely.

        • Araozu@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Google silently shipping signed chrome executables soon…

          And then people wonder why non chromium browsers are important

            • hismajesty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nah, chromium by itself is okay. Its just google, microshit and everyone else using the chromium source to ship as much telemetry, ads, data as possible.

              • mihor@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m pretty sure Chromium is still phoning home just as it used to for almost a decade. It’s a piece of Google’s garbage.