undefined | Better HN

0 pointsEvanAnderson6y ago0 comments

Yes. I am saying that some website operators would like to load an entire browser into your client just so they can control the presentation (make sure you're not able to block their ads, control their scripts, etc).

I'm not talking about the sandboxed browser being able to "clear your hard drive", etc. I'm talking about users having no real agency when it comes to controlling the presentation of websites. (Sure, it's code running on your computer. You're free to attach a debugger to step thru native code that runs a VM that runs a nested VM that's ultimately running the code you'd actually like to influence. Let me know how that goes for you.)

Have you seen JSLinux[1]?

[1] - https://bellard.org/jslinux/

0 comments

IvanK_net6y ago

I don't think it is necessary to make websites extremely complex, to prevent you from blocking ads.

I think blocking ads is a game you can never win. If you are able to block ads on some websites today, it is just because the site owners allow you to do so (they could easily prevent you from doing so). Ads technologies can evolve to a point when you as a human can not distinguish between ads and the rest of the content.

int_19h6y ago

It would make content control more complicated, but it can't make it impossible.

If the embedded browser uses the host's HTTP implementation, then you can filter and edit content there.

If it implements HTTP itself on top of raw sockets, then you can intercept traffic on socket level (although you'd need to MITM any SSL connection).

gmueckl6y ago

If the inner browser has its own client certificate or simply checks for a set of known server certificates, MITM won't get you anywhere. Done right, this could well be game over.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse