On 13/08/15(Thu) 20:35, Alexey Suslikov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Brandon Mercer > <yourcomputer...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Another thing that bothers me. These keys are USB HIDs, right? Is it safe > >> enough to let browser access USB bus (USB keyboard is HID and people > >> can type different things on it).
What do you mean? You're already typing in your browser, right? AFAIK these devices act like standard keyboards. "Is is safe enough" depends on a lot of factors. And I don't know if nor why the browser needs to access your USB bus. > > Well, that part of it is a completely different animal. It's probably worth > > a separate discussion about how the protocol works. You are suggesting that > > this couldn't even be made to work in a secure fashion, and I'm not going to > > disagree with you. > > Not exactly what I suggested. > > My idea was a sort of USB proxy (emulator) to allow software like Chrome > to access USB bus in secure way (like if you can configure what do you want > to expose and what you don't). > > Smth like vscsi midlayer accessible from user-land which user in control of. > > Chrome uses only sort of vusb hub/bus with only permitted devices behind. > > Also useful for usb camera/sound access control. Why not put the same amount of effort in the existing userland interface of the USB stack? In the end what's complicated is the answer to "which user can to what". Honestly I doubt that another layer of abstraction will help, especially if you considering the sate of our USB stack. I don't know if you looked at Chrome's sources but it uses the libusb (don't ask me why) and that's already a "proxy" to use your words.
