Re: Leakage (Re: Requirements on mandatory constraints (ACTION-27))

On 2013-11-25 20:59, cowwoc wrote:
> On 25/11/2013 2:37 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 25 November 2013 11:07, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>>> Even if we don't need any extra flexibility, my proposal (allowing
>>> developers to pass in a filter function) would provide you as much
>>> flexibility as you'll ever need without the risk of fingerprinting.
>>> Isn't it
>>> better to tackle fingerprinting in a more consistent manner as I have
>>> described? You could reuse this same functionality across all of WebRTC.
>> Your proposal doesn't change the underlying mathematics of the
>> situation.  It's merely a way to change the selection process.
>
> I don't understand. My proposal was for the browser to "sanitize"
> user-functions, ensuring that they do not leak fingerprinting
> information outside of the local computer. This can be implemented by
> scanning the function ahead of time, or implementing a sandboxing
> mechanism similar to Java where the browser would deny access to API
> functions at runtime while executing in sandbox mode. While it is true
> that I proposed this while discussing getUserMedia() its applications
> are not limited to the selection process.

This is a quite interesting proposal that would benefit advanced 
developers greatly. I'm not sure it's something that we should pursue at 
this point though.

/Adam

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 08:17:13 UTC