1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
looks like rendering adblockers extensions obsolete with manifest-v3 was not enough so now they try to implement DRM into the browser giving the ability to any website to refuse traffic to you if you don't run a complaint browser ( cough...firefox )
here is an article in hacker news since i'm sure they can explain this to you better than i.
and also some github docs
And if you start building a QEMU machine that spoofes your machine IDs? So you can do all ypur DRM sruff from QEMU?
I have never used Chrome because Google is evil. I used edge once to download Firefox.
Question: Firefox renders certain DRM content in containers. Would that be applicable here? (Run unmodified site in container in background, load site content from that to user, and direct the attestor to the container so that the user can modify the site on the front end)?
The point of this is so that the user can't modify the site at all, despite what the proposal might say. Their goals and non-goals are contradictory.
Running this content in a container will not protect you. Just don't even try to adapt to it. Reject it completely.
web env. integrity is not as bad as people make it out to be.
yeah I absolutely agree that it's terrible and also a bad idea (we don't need MORE drm in our browsers, I'm looking at you, Widevine (although firefox worked around it by running drm in an isolated container)), but it's main purpose is to detect automated requests and effectively block web scraping with a drm system (it ensures two things: your useragent can be trusted and you're a real non-automated user), NOT detect ad blockers. It doesn't prevent web pages from being modified like some people are saying.
there's a lot of misleading information about the api as it doesn't "verify integrity" of the web page/DOM itself.
it works by creating a token that a server can verify, for example when a user creates a new post. If the token is invalid, server may reject your attempt to do an action you're trying to perform. (this will probably just lead to a forced captcha in browsers that don't support it...)
Also, here's a solution: Just don't use Chrome or any Chromium-based browsers.
It doesn't prevent web pages from being modified like some people are saying.
In itself it does not, yes. What it will do is tell the server if the user runs a "non-approved" system configuration. That could mean anything from using addons that were installed from outside of the chrome addon store, through running a custom chromium build, to running an unapproved operating system or an approved operating system but unapproved state (driver signature enforcement disabled, TPM not present or says the system is "not trusted").
Just like on Android with SafetyNet for the past few years. If you rooted your phone (perhaps to remove datamining bloatware from facebook and such) or straight out installed an alternative android system that respects you, then your phone is "not trusted" anymore, and a couple of apps wont work now.
We know it exactly how it will work, and with this it wont stop at the smartphone, it will spread to affect any kind of PCs too.
This will have nothing to do with the security of users. This is solely about the security of web service providers, that you won't even try to filter the content that they want to push to your device when visiting their website.
This has no place outside of the strictest of corporate environments, at all.
NOT detect ad blockers
Sure, except that by this the server will know it exactly if your browser even allows effective adblockers (firefox) or not (chrome), and may as well decide to refuse to work if there is a possibility that the user has an ad blocker.
No, as you have written later, just using a non-chrome web browser will not be a solution, just as using banking apps and others is not possible on alternative android systems like LineageOS or GrapheneOS, not because actual incompatibility, but because of the device not being "trusted" (by google, as they run the verification system over there too).
I mean, I'm using Chrome right now, but if they actually implement this and my ad blocker stops working, I'm switching to Opera or something.
Do they really expect to not lose browser users with this move?
Why wait? Switch to Firefox now
So here's the thing. This web integrity nonsense isn't about locking people into Chrome, it's about locking people into seeing what they'd see if they were using Chrome. The result might be more people using chrome if a website decides to DRM their content and their ads, but if you switch from one Chromium-based browser that forces you to see the ads like Chrome does to another Chromium-based browser that forces you to see the content that the website originator wants you to, like Opera, that's still a win for Google who are more interested in forcing you to see ads for this cause than for you to use Chrome.
The solution is voice objections to Google implementing this, to not use websites that implement DRM, and to not use web browsers that let Google dictate what the future of the web through their control of the Chromium engine
Hate to tell you this here but Opera is also chrome based........
To be helpful here is a list of all the browsers (according to Wikipedia anyway) that are actually just three chromes in a trench coat.
Arc
Amazon Silk
Avast Secure Browser developed by Avast
Blisk
Brave
Carbonyl
CodeWeavers
Comodo Dragon
Cốc Cốc
Epic Browser
Falkon
Microsoft Edge
Naver Whale
Opera
Qihoo 360 Secure Browser
qutebrowser
Samsung Internet
Sleipnir
Slimjet:
SRWare Iron
ungoogled-chromium
Vivaldi
Yandex Browser It's funny how they think this is gonna do shit. The only thing this'll do is make everyone switch browsers.
jokes on them
im going back to lynx
I know my uBO has saved me from some hostile shit. So yeah it's a part of my browser security. I have it configured to a stricter blocking mode so it's not just blocking ads for me, it gets other stuff that can be a problem.
Anyway I'm aware of the Manifest V3 business and being on Chrome I'm just waiting for the hammer to fall before going to Firefox. If they start adding DRM as well, I'm out of there quick.
Yeah, yeah, I know, just go to Firefox now, but I don't really want to deal with a new browser and all my custom stuff until I have to. I'm old and that shit is super hard to motivate on for me. Not to say I'm inept, I mean I've spent my whole career in tech, but old dogs and all.