facepalm

Posted May 14, 2014 18:39 UTC (Wed) by higuita (guest, #32245)
In reply to: *facepalm* by coriordan
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

The problem is that there is already sites that require DRM, the ONLY use for silverlight is the DRM, and many people have to install it (even in linux via the moonlight project)

Flash is dying, silverlight is dead, except in the DRM field, where both are alive. The objective is to stop supporting those plugins and at least take some control back to the browser.

I too don't like DRM, i will try to use any of it, but i can understand the mozilla decision. Not having any DRM would put all the power on the other browsers and if DRM success, mozilla would be forced to implement features build by 3 major content suppliers. This way it can put some hard limits on what DRM can do before is too late.

facepalm

Posted May 14, 2014 23:29 UTC (Wed) by moltonel (guest, #45207) [Link] (4 responses)

I'm not sure how replacing the closed adobe flash plugin by a closed Adobe EME plugin gives much control back to the browser.

I guess an EME plugin has less features and therefore a smaller attack surface, but that's the only good thing I can think about it. Flash may be on everbody's tokill list, but it's a known quantity, it still has wider support than EME, and even has some open implementations.

I'd rather avoid DRM content. But when DRM is the only option, I don't mind using flash for it.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 8:33 UTC (Thu) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link] (3 responses)

The new plugin can be sandboxed.

The open implementations of Flash are a red herring in this case, because they don't support DRM. If you are viewing DRMed content now, you will be using a (the) closed-source Flash player. So the new arrangements are no worse for you.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 11:16 UTC (Thu) by gidoca (subscriber, #62438) [Link] (2 responses)

Flash is sandboxed in recent versions of Chrome, I'm sure Firefox could do that too.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 12:10 UTC (Thu) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link]

Flash is only sandboxed to a degree, even in Chrome. It still has full network access and it has disk access, and it has video hardware access, and from a few things I heard so far, the Chrome sandbox is quite leaky due to all the things they need to open to keep Flash working (and not just because of the design of PPAPI, which lets Flash directly access the innards of Chrome). The problem is that Flash is a huge, multi-purpose plugin that does tons of different things all over the computer, DRM being only a tiny piece of it.
What Mozilla is trying to do is getting rid of that huge multi-purpose proprietary thing that is hard to secure and replace it with a small for-one-purpose-only (that needs to have a nice ring for unix-lovers, right?) well-sandboxed-by-design module, so that this CDM module isolates the proprietary functionality better.

facepalm

Posted May 16, 2014 21:20 UTC (Fri) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281) [Link]

Not necessarily. Chrome sandboxes Flash through a partnership that includes source code, and a lot of engineering went into modifying Flash for sandboxing. A lot of effort and money went into that, and it would be up to Adobe to decide if it even wants to work with Mozilla on this.