| > Reason they state for not adding support it is that user consent is not enough to access the device, which is just nonsense, There was a kinda major security issue [1] where malicious websites used WebUSB to access FIDO/U2F keys. This was bad because U2F credentials are supposed to be impossible to phish, as the browser's U2F API puts the domain name in the request to the token - but by using WebUSB, a site could request a token for any domain name. And as both U2F and WebUSB popped up quite similar looking user consent boxes, it's pretty much impossible to avoid some users getting confused. Google's solution, believe it or not, was to blocklist a load of devices for WebUSB [2] - so now anyone making U2F devices has to get Google to add every new product they release to the blocklist. Everyone loves the fact the browser is a secure sandbox, letting users run untrusted code. I don't get why people want to poke so many holes in the sandbox. [1] https://www.yubico.com/support/security-advisories/ysa-2018-...
[2] https://github.com/WICG/webusb/blob/main/blocklist.txt |
My thoughts precisely. I want browsers to be welding holes shut, not opening new ones.
I’d think differently if user consent were required to load any scripts past a certain complexity threshold (e.g. if they’re heavier than that of an early-mid 00s website, hold off on execution until the user approves), but with how easily users can be taken to sites they never asked to go to every added bit of deep system integration a browser gains is a massive liability. The web is too built up around the idea of implied consent to be doing anything too fancy.