W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Why does screen sharing require a browser extension?

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:16:53 -0500
Message-ID: <52957235.2020901@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 26/11/2013 10:43 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> If the screenshare chooser provides some information such as "Warning:
> only click ok if you agree to give the website access to your desktop"
>   I think it can be made to work.
>
> WebRTC without native screen sharing is not living up to its
> potential, so I'd like to find a way to make this work asap.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.

Commenting specifically on the use of a browser extensions: We've been 
installing applications that had unlimited access to all our computers 
for years, and the world didn't end. Do we honestly expect browser 
vendors to detect and ban malicious apps faster than anti-virus 
companies? If misbehaving iframes are so difficult to detect, how do 
browser vendors plan to detect malicious apps?

Browser vendors are spread thin, with more bugs filed than fixed with 
every passing day. Anti-virus companies have dedicated teams that do 
nothing other than detect and ban malicious apps. If I had to guess, I'd 
say that anti-virus companies will do a better job. They roll out 
updates multiple times a day while browsers roll out updates multiple 
times a month. There is just no comparison. Most of them already have 
the ability to scan for and ban specific webapps.

I further agree with Steve that the feature needs to be portable across 
browsers, and pushing it into browser extensions prevents this from 
happening.

Gili
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 04:18:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:36 UTC