Re: Why does screen sharing require a browser extension?

Screen sharing can have in the practical end the same security
concerns that a full-screen webapp, so I think that showing an alert
about "screen sharing is currently being done, accept?" in the same
way that happens when enabling full-screen would be enough.

2013/11/25 Rob Manson <robman@mob-labs.com>:
> What session was that in?  And is there an official announcement somewhere?!
>
> 8(
>
> roBman
>
>
>
> On 26/11/13 3:56 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the WebRTC World conference Justin Uberti mentioned that Chrome (and
>> Firefox too?) will be moving screen sharing out of Javascript, requiring
>> developers to publish a browser extension per application that wishes to
>> screen-share. The logic behind it was that malicious app could be banned
>> from the app store.
>>
>> One thing I didn't understand (and was not explained) is why screen
>> sharing is substantially more security-sensitive than webcam sharing? I get
>> the fact that someone could use screen sharing to snoop on my banking
>> activity, but how is this any more security sensitive than knowing what I
>> look like and where I live? If the security dialog is good enough for webcam
>> sharing, why is it not good enough for screen sharing?
>>
>> And finally, couldn't you simply require the use of SSL for this feature
>> and then ban malicious applications based on their certificate? Requiring
>> the download of an extension is almost like requiring a browser plugin for
>> WebRTC. I'd like to avoid it if at all possible.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gili
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux

Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 17:14:48 UTC