[H4ZB7]

why do i have to be exposed to these people who don't have the slightest clue about how the computer works? i want out. i don't want to use an ecosystem that includes these people to be part of what runs on my computer. why would i want arbitrary web pages to be able to connect to all my daemons that expected that outsiders can't connect to them including stuff like X and god knows what else. it's bad enough that browsers can already connect to localhost which has already single handedly enabled hundreds of thousands of vulnerabilities in the form of "attacker's page (even with js disabled) accesses your local daemon from some 10th level nested iframe ad crap"

i want out of this community. all these little people who have zero contextual understanding always requesting and implementing these features at all costs as long as the idea exists. this is a un*x problem at the core: if a feature conceptually exists, we must implement it at all costs. and another un*x problem here is having a global namespace (tcp port numbers) that things are just exposed to everything (either localhost or the network) by default when they could have easily just used an opaqaue handle that the machine operator can copy and paste into whatever application he wants to use it (no some openauth type shit that failed to be secure for 15 years is not what i have in mind)

[p4bl0]

> why would i want arbitrary web pages to be able to connect to all my daemons

Browsers implementing support for unix domain sockets would of course need to completely block such connection from tcp pages and only allow connection to a given socket provided it is the one currently in the url bar, that the current page has been loaded from.

If that's not enough, you can always use the file permission system to block your everyday browser running as your regular user to access the service sockets, and spawn a browser using a dedicated user account (www-sock? just like we have www-data for web servers?) that you only use for this.

> when they could have easily just used an opaque handle that the machine operator can copy and paste into whatever application he wants to use it

Then the point of failure would be the random number generator used to generate the "opaque handle". Security by obscurity never works.