On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:36 AM, Martin Thomson <m...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Robert O'Callahan <rob...@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> > >> >> (4) Have the APIs hidden behind access controls that need to be >> enabled by >> >> an extension >> >> (but a trivial one). Perhaps you think this is #2. >> >> >> > >> > I realized I don't understand exactly what this means. >> >> >> The basic idea is similar to what we are currently doing for >> screensharing. Maintain a whitelist of sites that can access USB (or >> origin+device pairs). The extension/addon just adds a set of things to >> this whitelist. And yes, because this is installed in the same way >> that the worst of our addons is installed, we gain the same (limited) >> protections that we get from the addons, including the ability to >> block the addon if it turns out to be bad. >> > > Yes, as Martin says. The usual reasoning here is "if I could get you to > install an add-on like this, it's game over anyway" > > > For the record: I think is an awful solution, but it might work here. >> > > I too think it's an awful solution, just less awful than being in the > business > of enforcing vendor lockin for these devices. > What if we allow such addons but also whitelist the vendor origin reported by the device? Rob -- lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr rdn rdsme,anea lurpr edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf toD selthor stor edna siewaoeodm or v sstvr esBa kbvted,t rdsme,aoreseoouoto o l euetiuruewFa kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr rdm or rnea lurpr .a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr esn _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
