I’m trying to create a web app that involves sharing of user-generated content, but one of the goals is that the service host operator should be blind to the content. Only authorized users should be able to see the content shared with them. This implies the content must be encrypted at rest, and users must hold custody of their private signing key.
I figure the situation requires an open source browser extension to hold onto a user’s keys and decrypt content for them. The web app would still be able to browse all of the site’s metadata, but any plaintext content must be siloed in the extension. The reason for using an extension is that the source code would be open source and independently verifiable, while building the same functionality into the web app would require trusting the host to serve the code you expect.
Do you think that’s a reasonable tradeoff or is this asking too much from users?
The other option would be just requiring users to download an open source app for content viewing.
EDIT: Perhaps an important followup: are you OK placing trust in the host to never access your confidential data if it means you don’t have to install additional client software or worry about verifying that client software’s authenticity?
I know what native messaging is, and I’m not “full of it” because native messaging does exactly nothing at all unless the user explicitly installs software at the system level to receive those messages and act upon them. If the user doesn’t know the difference between installing an extension in a browser and downloading & executing local programs, that’s an education problem, but having to do some separate installation step is a useful security obstacle. It’s much safer compared to old school extensions.
Also, Firefox Quantum came out in 2017, which used the manifest permissions system (wasn’t Chrome ahead of them?), so the tech you were originally talking about is older than 9 years, not 3.
💩 semantic distinctions, extensions can run whatever when you register the logic in advance, as suggested in my first comment
If you think installing a downloaded program alongside your browser is a “💩 semantic distinction” from a bit of script running inside your browsers sandboxing, then it’s clear you either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’d rather continue to to spread FUD than concede on basic facts.
It is he thing I suggested from the start.
I already get you’re full of it. You don’t have to jeep selling me
> Says they wrote an extension 3 years ago but doesn’t seem to know about decade-old isolation.
> Tries to tell everyone that extensions like OP’s can run system commands, despite their use case not having any need to do so.
> Accuses others of being full of it.
Jog on, mate.
All nonsense aside I recognize you were trying to be helpful in your own way.
I don’t much care for that way but bear you no genuine ill will and wish you the best.
💩
You can call someone “full of it” and put as many cute little emojis as you like, but if you can’t articulate a coherent argument about what you think they’ve said is factually incorrect, you may not be the brilliant bullshit detector you think you are. And repeating the insult with nothing of substance to back up the assertion just reduces your argument to ad hominem.
💩 i get it, it’s hard being so wrong and you really need a W from SOME angle
Sticking with the ad hominem, eh? Not the brightest choice.
💩
For posterity, my original edit was in before his first comment.
So full of it
Still going. I never saw the very first edit of your content, but the bullshit is still there:
Extensions cannot scan local drives, other programs that one installs in addition can. like I already explained, OP wouldn’t need a companion program, so you’re incapable of admitting (or maybe understanding?) that you’re spreading baseless FUD about OP’s proposed idea.
Sure they can. By messaging a native tool. Pedantic 💩
Which don’t exist unless you install them, too, which OP’s extension wouldn’t need. You’re chronically unable to focus on the context, aren’t you?