|
|
|
|
|
by pjc50
4081 days ago
|
|
Users fall into two categories: 1) Don't really care about privacy. Might not want their chat on the front page of the papers, but aren't going to go to great lengths to achieve that. 2) Actually care about privacy and are informed. There's not many of these people, but they're trained to be wary of every outside dependency and opportunity for hostile code injection. Crypto running in the browser can be replaced any time you load it if the host is compromised - either in the technical sense or the legal sense. Yes, it could be hashed, but it isn't and there's no mechanism for this nor plans to build one. Not to mention that the browser itself presents a pretty large attack surface. |
|
That's kind of a shame. It would be nice if apps distributed over the web could be signed the same way they are from repositories.
> Not to mention that the browser itself presents a pretty large attack surface.
As does the operating system itself. I would have thought with a local (likely native) client, you just have one less layer to get through.