In recent news, Google has put forth a proposal known as the "Web Environment Integrity Explainer", authored by four of its engineers. On the surface, it
Ultimately, my browser must render each web page element, no? I don’t see how an ad blocker could be impossible, unless ads are part of the content itself like what happens with video streaming.
So let the browser live unmodified. Intercept JavaScript on memory and block it. Of course there’s a way, no matter how complex, to stop a remote server from displaying something on your screen - Google isn’t controlling your graphics driver.
The major point is not so much whether your browser could block ads - your point regarding the browser ultimately having to render each element is true. The problem is that if the web server gets a request from an unattested browser (such as an old version, or one that has an ad blocker installed), it will refuse to serve any content, not just ads.
Regular people will inevitably get frustrated and we end up in scenarios like “<x browser>is bad, it doesn’t work with <y site>” because of this proposal, and more and more people end up switching until you have to use a compliant (Chromium-based) browser to do anything at all on the internet, and Google’s strangehold on web standards solidifies even further.
Actually, they are controlling your graphics driver. If you’re using a custom driver you’ll fail attestation because you have untrusted code in your kernel and/or browser process. I expect this will also fail if you’re using an old driver with known vulnerabilities that allow you to use your own device in unexpected ways.
Your TPM unit in the motherboard has more privileges than you do. It attests to the integrity of the kernel, graphics driver included, and the kernel attests to the integrity of the browser and any peripherals.
Why can’t it? I’m sure Windows allows non-admin processes to get information about active drivers, secure their own memory, and provide attestation that they are secured, provided TPM and secure boot are enabled.
Ads need to be blocked at a higher level. Get as many as possible to vow to never buy a thing advertised on a webpage. You see an ad, that thing advertised gets a no-buy stamp.
Wasn’t this tried with videos already? graphic overlay mode or something, for a few years you can’t even take a snapshot of a video playing on your screen, you just get a black box.
It’s still very much a thing and works fairly well to protect high quality DRM content. People forgot it’s a thing because a regular person is rarely in a situation where it would prevent them from doing something.
Ultimately, my browser must render each web page element, no? I don’t see how an ad blocker could be impossible, unless ads are part of the content itself like what happens with video streaming.
The browser could just refuse to attest if you’ve got an ad blocker enabled. That’s the whole point of this.
So let the browser live unmodified. Intercept JavaScript on memory and block it. Of course there’s a way, no matter how complex, to stop a remote server from displaying something on your screen - Google isn’t controlling your graphics driver.
The major point is not so much whether your browser could block ads - your point regarding the browser ultimately having to render each element is true. The problem is that if the web server gets a request from an unattested browser (such as an old version, or one that has an ad blocker installed), it will refuse to serve any content, not just ads.
Regular people will inevitably get frustrated and we end up in scenarios like “<x browser>is bad, it doesn’t work with <y site>” because of this proposal, and more and more people end up switching until you have to use a compliant (Chromium-based) browser to do anything at all on the internet, and Google’s strangehold on web standards solidifies even further.
Actually, they are controlling your graphics driver. If you’re using a custom driver you’ll fail attestation because you have untrusted code in your kernel and/or browser process. I expect this will also fail if you’re using an old driver with known vulnerabilities that allow you to use your own device in unexpected ways.
deleted by creator
Your TPM unit in the motherboard has more privileges than you do. It attests to the integrity of the kernel, graphics driver included, and the kernel attests to the integrity of the browser and any peripherals.
deleted by creator
Why can’t it? I’m sure Windows allows non-admin processes to get information about active drivers, secure their own memory, and provide attestation that they are secured, provided TPM and secure boot are enabled.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2017/10/23/hardening-the-system-and-maintaining-integrity-with-windows-defender-system-guard/
I’m not sure about what you’re talking about here. I’m not suggesting ad blocking will require an aftermarket modified Nvidia driver.
You said “Google isn’t controlling your graphics driver”
deleted by creator
Ads need to be blocked at a higher level. Get as many as possible to vow to never buy a thing advertised on a webpage. You see an ad, that thing advertised gets a no-buy stamp.
That’s not how people’s minds work, even if you managed to convince everyone to do it.
Wasn’t this tried with videos already? graphic overlay mode or something, for a few years you can’t even take a snapshot of a video playing on your screen, you just get a black box.
And now people forgot it was ever a thing.
I’m pretty sure overlay mode was always about performance, not preventing screenshots.
It’s still very much a thing and works fairly well to protect high quality DRM content. People forgot it’s a thing because a regular person is rarely in a situation where it would prevent them from doing something.
It’s possible but not particularly plausible.
Someone always finds a way.