905
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
905 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
3096 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Not a solution. Much of the modern web is reliant on JavaScript to function.
Noscript made sense when the web was pages with superfluous scripts that enhanced what was already there.
Much of the modern web is web apps that fundamentally break without JS. And picking and choosing unfortunately won't generally protect from this because it's common practice to use a bundler such as webpack to keep your page weight down. This will have been pulled in as a dependency in many projects and the site either works or does not based on the presence of the bundle.
Not saying this is a great situation or anything, but suggesting noscript as a solution is increasingly anachronistic.
This wasn't bundled. People inserted a script tag pointing to a third-party CDN onto their sites. The output changes depending on the browser (it only loads the polyfills needed for the current browser) so you can't even use a subresource integrity hash.
“function” is doing a lot of lifting there. Trackers, ads, and assorted other bullshit is not the kind of functioning anyone needs.
It’s true the average user gets flummoxed quickly when the scripts are blocked, but they can either sink (eat ads and trackers) or swim (learn what scripts to allow). (Spoiler: they almost always sink)
And much of it works better and faster without JavaScript. Some sites don't work in Noscript, but most sites run faster and work well enough.
.
I only allow JS on a whitelist.
A whitelist wouldn't mitigate this issue entirely due to bundling
In this case the script wasn't bundled at all - it was hotlinked from a third party CDN. Adding malicious code instantly affects all the sites that load it.
The output differs depending on browser (it only loads the polyfills your browser needs) so it's incompatible with subresource integrity.
Imo, computing, like all other things, requires a little trust and risk. The problem is most people are Wayyy to trusting in general.
I definitely prefer using no-script enabled pages. If it were me, I would prefer a fully non-JavaScript internet with static pages.
JavaScript introduces so many vulnerabilities, it makes adobe flashplayer look like a security suite. JavaScript also breaks all accessibility features like speech recognition and font size and color control.
Flash was magnitudes worse than the risk of JS today, it's not even close.
Accessibility is orthogonal to JavaScript if the site is being built to modern standards.
Unfortunately preference is not reality, the modern web uses JavaScript, no script is not an effective enough solution.
Flash was containerized, and completely safe until adobe just stopped supporting it. A million times better than what JavaScript has become in terms of privacy. There is a reason noscript is bundled with Tor.
And preference is definitely a reality. It is niche at the moment but I see a future where more and more people see JavaScript for what it is. Bloat.
Flash ran as a browser plugin (as in not an extension, but a native binary that is installed into the OS and runs beside the browser, we basically don't do this for anything now)
Flash was pretty much on weekly security bulletins in the final years, arbitrary code execution and privilege escalation exploits were common, that's why Adobe killed it.
Flash was never safe and comparing JavaScript to it as a greater risk shows you've not fully understood the threat model of at least one of the two.
We still use plugins. In fact you most likely have one installed right now for video encoding. JavaScript not being a plugin is the reason we only have two major browser cores. Chromium and gecko. JavaScript prevents new browsers from entering the ecosystem due to how hard it is to implement unlike how easy it would have been as a plugin.
Flash had vulnerabilities because of neglect from adobe. The core design of flash and its earlier stages made by Macromedia were great. It had a sandboxes environment, and later it even was integrated into a browser sandbox just like JavaScript, eliminating most vulnerabilities.
Flash was very limited in the malicious code it could run, as opposed to JavaScript which can automatically redirect you to malicious websites, install tracking cookies, access the browser canvas to install tracking pixels, freeze your entire browser, take control of your cursor, look at your entire clipboard history, collect enough information about you to competely identify and track your footprint over the entire internet.
Flash couldn't access your clipboard or files unless you clicked allow every time, couldn't access anything outside of its little window, and if it froze, the browser was mostly unaffected, and flash had almost no ability to collect any data about your browser.
That's literally the one main somewhat valid use case for plugins, and it's basically because of DRM. A plugin that allows arbitrary code to run is a security nightmare, that's why we don't do it anymore.
A lot of the security features you describe were added by browser vendors late in the game because of how much of a security nightmare flash was. I was building web software back when this was all happening, I know first hand. People actually got pissy when browsers blocked the ability for flash to run without consent and access things like the clipboard. I even seem to remember a hacky way of getting at the filesystem in flash via using the file upload mechanism, but I can't remember the specifics as this was obviously getting close to two decades ago now.
Your legitimate concerns about JavaScript are blockable by the browser.
Flash was a big component of something called the evercookie—one of the things that led to stuff like GDPR because of how permanently trackable it made people. Modern JavaScript tracking is (quite rightfully) incredibly limited compared to what was possible with flash around. You could track users between browsers FFS.
You're starting to look like you don't know what you're talking about here.
Flash didn't allow arbitrary code to run. It had a very limited scripting language (which design-wise is superior to JavaScript, by the way) to control canvas elements and playing sound. You couldn't execute programs on your computer.
If by late you mean right before action script 2. I was making flash games back then and I remember it being unable to access virtually anything without first triggering a prompt, which you could disable by right clicking, and going into properties.
Yes, through NoScript. And it should be blocked, not blockable.
It is funny you mention evercookie because that was a JavaScript library, and affected all cookies, not just flash cookies.
Flash cookies being sharable between browsers was bad, but you could still easily clear those cookies, that is until a certain JavaScript library started restoring them automatically.
Mate, actionscript was not only basically JavaScript with adobe vendor extensions, but it was literally a programming language! If that's not arbitrary code, then you've got a crazy definition of what is! You've kinda unequivocally demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about at this point, I'm afraid.
And way to completely misunderstand the evercookie. The flash part was how it could jump between browsers, no browser cookie can do that. It was a combination of everything that made it such a problem.
Arbitrary code execution is a vulnerability where you write and execute arbitrary code outside of the intended environment
Just because Actionscript is a language doesn't mean it has the functionality to do whatever to your machine. It lacks most of those functions because it is mostly a graphics library. It would have to run an already prepared external script via some improper memory pointer somewhere for it to be arbitrary code execution.
And Actionscript is not built on top of JavaScript. Both JavaScript and ActionScript are based on ecmascript. They are different, just like Typescript and JavaScript are different.
Actionscript was object oriented and had proper types unlike JavaScript which to this day is one of the worst programming languages.
Are you sure I'm the one misunderstanding the problem of evercookie? Was the problem that you could access the same cookies from multiple browsers because of ActionScript, or was it that evercookie maliciously restored said deleted cookies after they were supposed to no longer be used? One is a feature that allows transferring sessions between browsers on the same computer. The other is essentially malware.
ECMAscript is based on JavaScript
I'm not gonna bother entertaining the rest of your post, you can't seem to even get the basics right
Ecmascript was made to standardize JavaScript, but it isn't based on JavaScript. Actionscript is then based on ecmascript, making Actionscript a sibling to JavaScript, not a subset.
In other words, accessibility is in the hands of the developers, not the visitor. And the developer really wants that scrolling background and non-selectable text, so tough luck, people with no hands, I guess.
Well, by that measure, you don't need JavaScript to make inaccessible sites, there are plenty of sites out there that ruin accessibility with just HTML and CSS alone.
It's always up to the developer to make sure the site is accessible. At least now it seems to be something that increasingly matters to search result rankings
You really can't. If it was only HTML and CSS, any accessibility program would be able to select any part of the page, and easily alter the CSS and HTML. That is next to impossible now because of JavaScript.
It shouldn't be up to the website developer. It should be up to the browser developer. You don't blame a lemmy instance for poor accessibility with Jerboa.
100% agree. A super-fast text only internet layer is approved.