Re: ISSUE-131 (Code outside browser): Executing code outside of browser in 8.3.2.3 is vague / scary [All]

Re: Flash, you may have a point there, but I am not sure I want to give in
just yet. For instance, with Flash - most users are going to say "Well, if
you can upgrade it and make it work, why the heck are you asking me". A
vocal minority may complain about the automatic upgrade. Here at least
though, someone could probably understand what you're asking them to do.

For Acrobat reader, 99%+ of users are going to be totally unable to
understand the distinction between the plugin's rendering part that runs
inside of the process, and the majority of the code (acrord32.exe) that is
running outside of the browser. They're going to see a dialog that says
"Blah blah blah do you want Acrobat reader to work Yes/No" and they're going
to think "Wow, that's a stupid question." And that's a horrible thing,
because it means you're presenting the user with useless UI and creating a
bad user experience, which means that either the browser isn't going to
implement that (assuming they have UI standards about not bothering the user
with things they don't understand), or the user is going to suffer.

Another case in point about useless UI: the first time you submit a
non-encrpyed form. "Oh my god, you just tried to do a search on Google. Are
you sure you really want to submit this form? It's not encrypted
!!1!one!!1!" - I think that dialog was going away in FF3, but I don't really
remember. But it's basically all the same - it's UI that 99% of the time is
pointless and isn't understandable by the user anyways, so why do it?

On Jan 2, 2008 10:01 AM, Anil Saldhana <Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com> wrote:

> Since I have never written a browser or a plugin, I cannot claim to be
> an expert in these two areas. :)  But I will still write what I think.
>
> It should not be difficult for a plugin writer to convey to the browser
> that on a given platform (OS etc), the plugin will execute outside the
> browser context. Before the plugin kicks in, it can reflect this on to
> user (with a consent dialog) such that the user can always blame himself
> in the end, for agreeing to execute the plugin. :)
>
> Now to the question of the browser popping up a consent dialog each time
> a pdf is opened, the consent dialog can certainly have a "Remember my
> decision for this plugin xxx" such that you have a seamless pdf viewing
> each time.
>
> All I wish for is when a plugin tries to do anything different from what
> my expectations are (outside the browser context or upgrade
> automatically), I am told about it. In the case of the flash plugin
> upgrading itself, it is not very difficult for them to add a notice
> inside the flash movie chrome such as:
> "The execution of this flash movie requires that you upgrade your flash
> plugin version to v10. We can do it automatically for you. Press Yes if
> you agree. No to cancel".
>
> Ian Fette wrote:
> > I think there are a lot of things that suck, that could probably be
> > eventually fixed if browser vendors took a stand. Plugins are one of
> them,
> > user agent strings are another (have you seen the iPhone user-agent
> string?
> > "Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML,
> > like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1A542a Safari/419.3" This is absolutely
> nuts,
> > and is huge overhead that is being transmitted everywhere. Apple could
> take
> > a stand and say "This is stupid, we're just going to say "iPhone -
> > AppleWebKit", but then tons of sites would break due to crap code doing
> > (often unnecessary) UA checking in a poor manner. Could apple change
> these
> > things, like warning on plugins doing wacky IPC, crazy UA strings, etc?
> > Sure. Would the responsible parties eventually fix it? Probably. But who
> > suffers in the meantime? The user.
> >
> > I'm not sure I like requiring things that cause the user to suffer,
> because
> > it means that either the user is going to suffer (bad), or the browsers
> > aren't going to implement the change because it would cause the user to
> > suffer (also bad).
> >
> > If we have problems with things like NPAPI, or plugin rights, those
> should
> > be addressed somewhere, but I don't think that trying to slip them in
> > WSC-XIT is the appropriate place to do so.
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2008 9:23 AM, Anil Saldhana <Anil.Saldhana@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On many platforms, the acrobat reader opens the PDF within the browser
> >> chrome (same tab on firefox).
> >>
> >> I think this is an important requirement from an user's perspective
> that
> >> they be notified when a plugin tries to execute things outside the
> >> contract established between the user and the browser. I understand
> that
> >> it is going to be extremely hard in getting it right. But until the
> >> browser vendors/implementers raise a red flag on this, I support the
> >> retention of this bullet. :)
> >>
> >> I did recently mention the case of the Adobe flash plugin automatically
> >> upgrading itself due to the new Flex software intentions. The user has
> >> no control over the upgrade. Just because a flash movie requires an
> >> upgraded plugin, does not mean the user has no say in consenting to the
> >> plugin upgrade. :)
> >>
> >> Ian Fette wrote:
> >>> As per our 12/12 meeting, I am proposing removing the third bullet
> under
> >>> 8.3.2 - "Web user agents MUST inform the user and request consent when
> >> web
> >>> content attempts to install or execute software outside of the browser
> >>> environment". There are many things that make this hard / impossible
> to
> >> get
> >>> right, and even harder to actually get the intended effect without
> being
> >>> totally annoying.
> >>>
> >>> For instance, when you load a PDF, Acrobat Reader is launched outside
> of
> >> the
> >>> browser context. Yet I don't really want a dialog box every time I
> >> browse to
> >>> a PDF, I just want to see the PDF. Same thing when I click on a
> mailto:
> >> link
> >>> - it's going to get shell executed, and software (my MUA) is going to
> >> run
> >>> outside the browser. Or if there's an embedded video that causes the
> >> windows
> >>> mediaplayer plugin to do some funky COM stuff outside of the browser -
> >>> again, I really don't want dialog boxes here. I understand the intent
> >> and
> >>> think it's probably a good one, but it's really hard to actually get
> it
> >>> right in words, and I think it's something that browsers are doing
> >> pretty
> >>> well anyways.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not going to rehash everything in this email, please see the 12/12
> >> notes
> >>> for a full review of the conversation (
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/12/12-wsc-minutes.html ). In that meeting, I
> said
> >> I
> >>> would email back on this issue and propose that the best way to
> resolve
> >> it
> >>> is to simply remove the bullet point, unless anyone feels strongly
> about
> >> it.
> >>> If you do feel strongly about it, then please come up with some
> >> alternate
> >>> text.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ian
> >>>
> >>> On Nov 6, 2007 8:36 AM, <michael.mccormick@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The "install" part is very important, but the "execute" part is a
> >> rabbit
> >>>> hole we probably don't want to go down.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, when I point IE at a resource of MIME type ms/xls, Excel
> >>>> launches outside the browser as a helper app.  It would be annoying
> if
> >> I
> >>>> got constant warning messages every time I pull up a XLS, PDF, etc.
> >>>> Constant warnings = ignored warnings.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do want to be warned when a page tries to install a plugin like
> >>>> Acroread, but not every time that plugin runs.  Same for helpers,
> >>>> toolbars, extensions, ActiveX controls, etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:
> public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
> >> ]
> >>>> On Behalf Of Web Security Context Working Group Issue Tracker
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:50 AM
> >>>> To: public-wsc-wg@w3.org
> >>>> Subject: ISSUE-131 (Code outside browser): Executing code outside of
> >>>> browser in 8.3.2.3 is vague / scary [All]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ISSUE-131 (Code outside browser): Executing code outside of browser
> in
> >>>> 8.3.2.3 is vague / scary [All]
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/WSC/track/issues/
> >>>>
> >>>> Raised by: Ian Fette
> >>>> On product: All
> >>>>
> >>>> 8.3.2.3 says "Web user agents MUST inform the user and request
> consent
> >>>> when web content attempts to install or execute software outside of
> the
> >>>> browser environment."
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a bit vague and probably not what we intend. For instance,
> when
> >>>> you navigate to a PDF on a browser using Acrobat Reader w/NPAPI
> plugin,
> >>>> what happens is that there is a plugin running in the browser, and
> then
> >>>> Acrobat Reader launches in the browser, and there's a ton of IPC
> >> between
> >>>> the plugin and Reader running in the background (which is doing the
> >>>> heavy lifting). This is executing software outside of the browser
> >>>> environment, yet I don't think this is really what we were intending
> to
> >>>> warn users about. At least, I will scream if I get a popup every time
> I
> >>>> navigate to a PDF. Seriously.
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Anil Saldhana
> Project/Technical Lead,
> JBoss Security & Identity Management
> JBoss, A division of Red Hat Inc.
> http://labs.jboss.com/portal/jbosssecurity/
>