Google’s Native Client Prepares to Pick up Where ActiveX Left Off

7

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Lhot

...recipe for disaster is too meek a phrase...it will be a catastrophe  :/

avatar

d3v

Native access to machines over the interwebz. Sounds like beginnings of skynet to me.

You would think in this day and age where virtualization is all the rage browser makers would be looking at that technology as a way to get more performance without compromising security.

avatar

Eoraptor

Of course not, security is always someone else's problem. Half of the bug-fix process is trying to claim that your security hole is actually somnone else's fault and put the patching process off on them.

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

Microsoft hasn't learned with ActiveX. It is still alive and well.We don't need any implementation of anything like ActiveX in intent. A browser should be really only that--it's becoming so much, you can probably replace most of any given program with web apps, addons and whatnot, creating a bigger security risk in the meantime.

It is a recipe for disaster, we still, in 2011, have naive 5th graders and grannies clicking on anything displayed within the confines of the browser window--I have fixed countless virus-infected netbooks owned by 10-year-olds to confirm this to be the truth. And, don't forget that there's also the quite common possibility of hijacks--include this feature, and there need not be any security breaches originating just from the user.

Even though I don't use Chrome, I really hope Google doesn't make another Internet Explorer, whether they go ahead with this 'native client' or not.

OT (kind of): How about spending some time, energy and effort on SANDBOXING???

avatar

Eoraptor

Well most browsers are essentially sandboxes to start with... then people have to go install flash and it's all tears and reformats from that point on. Except for IE, most browsers run pretty nicely independent of the OS. sadly, they don't do anything other than basic html 4 in that format and then you have to go tying them into flash, quicktime (god forbid), media player, etc to use most of the modern internet.

what we really need is a browser that meets the promise of HTML5 and its advanced multimedia structures without plugins and access to core files, or one that includes ALL of its own codecs, attachments, media passthroughs, and file Xfer functionality, which goes beyond sandboxing and into full virtual machining.

or smarter end users.

avatar

j0101011

there is allways going to be people who take advantage of idiots on the internet, and there are billions of idiots out there. For rich content it will allways be nesisary to access hardware, and someone will allways find a way to use it. So no matter how it is implemented there are allways going to be asses that take advantage of that fact.

avatar

Eoraptor

Considering people's predeliction to click on anything they see without checking to see if its legit or safe?

Yes, yes it is a recipie for disaster