• Atemu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    The browser could just refuse to attest if you’ve got an ad blocker enabled. That’s the whole point of this.

    • kadu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • kadu@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure about what you’re talking about here. I’m not suggesting ad blocking will require an aftermarket modified Nvidia driver.

                  • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The technology is useless if you can pass an integrity check just by running as admin. The point is that Google has control over what the process is doing and knows if you’re tampering with it. I guess nothing would stop you from making a device’s that uses the hdcp osd support to draw black boxes over ads you find using accessibility information, but if you’re able to modify the page through extensions or developer tools or memory manipulation, then you’re able to make automated API calls, and preventing that is supposedly the whole point of this system.

                    The reason for using an external device to overlay data on the video signal is that there is a browser API for tracking occlusion. It’s supposed to be used for things like disabling animations of elements that are not visible, but could be unethically used for things like making you pay extra to listen to videos if you don’t have an extra display to put them on.

                    I don’t know why you think secure computing doesn’t relate to driver control. Drivers run with special privileges and can modify protected memory. This is why people write root kits, and detecting those root kits is one of the primary motivations behind secure computing.

        • WasPentalive@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not how people’s minds work, even if you managed to convince everyone to do it.

        • StarrVorgato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.