this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024

906 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

58303 readers

17 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

906

The new Chinese owner of the popular Polyfill JS project injects malware into more than 100 thousand sites (sansec.io)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

114 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archived link

The polyfill.js is a popular open source library to support older browsers. 100K+ sites embed it using the cdn.polyfill.io domain. Notable users are JSTOR, Intuit and World Economic Forum. However, in February this year, a Chinese company bought the domain and the Github account. Since then, this domain was caught injecting malware on mobile devices via any site that embeds cdn.polyfill.io. Any complaints were quickly removed (archive here) from the Github repository.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People will ALWAYS fuck up. The world we craft for ourselves must take the “human factor” into account, otherwise we amplify the consequences of what are predictable outcomes.

So what does it say about us diverting from purely server-side scripted message boards with pure HTML and tables, and not a line of JS? Yes, let's get back there please. And no phone numbers.

The majority of industries that actually have immediate and potentially fatal consequences do exactly this, and have been for more than a generation now.

Boeing - we know where you're goeing.

Damn near everything you interact with on a regular basis has been designed at some point in time with human psychology in mind. Built on the shoulders of decades of research and study results, that have matured to the point of becoming “standard practices”.

There's one industry which kinda started like this, with proper HIG and standard key combinations and proven usability with screenreaders or by people with color blindness, autism, ADHD, whatever.

Then came in people talking with the tone similar to, sorry, yours in the "People will ALWAYS fuck up" part came saying that people want nice, dynamic, usable websites with lots of cool new features, people are social, they want girls with real photos, names and phone numbers on their forums which BTW should be called social nets.

By the way, we already had that with Flash and Java applets, some things of what I remember were still cooler than modern websites of the "web application" paradigm are now. And we had personal webpages with real names and contacts and photos. And there were tools allowing to make them easily.

These people just hated the existing culture with its individualism and depth, the web applications should be able to own you and not be just another kind of embedded content, the personal webpages should be all the same, and of course normies wouldn't want to come as guests into the nerdspace - no, they had those new social nets as their space, looking down on those nerds and freaks of my kind.

Now - well, try using today's web as a person impaired in any way.

And those normies can't really use it too, and too feel impaired, they just won't admit it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So what does it say about us diverting from purely server-side scripted message boards with pure HTML and tables, and not a line of JS? Yes, let's get back there please.

Ironically, proper SSR that has the server render the page as pure HTML & CSS is becoming more and more popular lately thanks to full-stack meta frameworks that make it super easy. Of course, wanting to go back to having no JS is crazy — websites would lose almost all ability to make pages interactive, and that would be a huge step backwards, no matter how much nostalgia you feel for a time before widespread JS. Also tables for layout fucking sucked in every possible way; for the dev, for the user, and for accessibility.

people want nice, dynamic, usable websites with lots of cool new features, people are social

That's right, they do and they are.

By the way, we already had that with Flash and Java applets, some things of what I remember were still cooler than modern websites of the "web application" paradigm are now.

Flash and Java Applets were a disaster and a horrible attempt at interactivity, and everything we have today is miles ahead of them. I don't even want to get into making arguments as to why because it's so widely documented.

And we had personal webpages with real names and contacts and photos. And there were tools allowing to make them easily.

There are vastly more usable and simple tools for making your own personal websites today!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Ironically, proper SSR that has the server render the page as pure HTML & CSS is becoming more and more popular lately thanks to full-stack meta frameworks that make it super easy.

I know. Just the "full-stack meta frameworks" part alone makes any ADHD person feel nausea.

Of course, wanting to go back to having no JS is crazy — websites would lose almost all ability to make pages interactive, and that would be a huge step backwards, no matter how much nostalgia you feel for a time before widespread JS.

I disagree. Geminispace is very usable without scripts.

That’s right, they do and they are.

Well, then it appears they don't care for what I need, so I don't care for what they need. If only one paradigm must remain, then naturally I pick mine. If not, then there's no problem and I still shouldn't care.

And those industry rules I was answering about are about making a thing work for both, even if being less functional.

Flash and Java Applets were a disaster and a horrible attempt at interactivity, and everything we have today is miles ahead of them. I don’t even want to get into making arguments as to why because it’s so widely documented.

Sorry, but either you still make an argument or this isn't worth much.

For me it's obvious that embeddable cross-platform applications as content inside hypertext are much better than turning a hypertext system into some overengineered crappy mess of a cross-platform application system.

The security issues with Flash and Java applets weren't much different from those in the other parts of a web browser back then.

There are vastly more usable and simple tools for making your own personal websites today!

I ask you for links and how many clicks and fucks it would take to make one with these, as opposed to back then. These are measurable, scientific things. Ergonomics is not a religion.

[–] JackbyDev 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I know. Just the "full-stack meta frameworks" part alone makes any ADHD person feel nausea.

??? Please don't make weird blanket statements like this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

OK, makes me feel nausea. Even better.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I know. Just the "full-stack meta frameworks" part alone makes any ADHD person feel nausea.

But why? What's bad about this?

I disagree. Geminispace is very usable without scripts

That's great, I'm not saying that it's impossible to make usable apps without JS. I'm saying that the capabilities of websites would be greatly reduced without JS being a thing. Sure, a forum can be served as fully static pages. But the web can support many more advanced use-cases than that.

If only one paradigm must remain, then naturally I pick mine. If not, then there's no problem and I still shouldn't care.

So you can see that other people have different needs to yours, but you think those shouldn't be considered? We're arguing about the internet. It's a pretty diverse space.

For me it's obvious that embeddable cross-platform applications as content inside hypertext are much better than turning a hypertext system into some overengineered crappy mess of a cross-platform application system.

Look, I'm not saying that the web is the most coherent platform to develop for or use, but it's just where we're at after decades of evolving needs needing to be met.

That said, embedded interactive content is absolutely not better than what we have now. For one, both Flash and Java Applets were mostly proprietary technologies, placing far too much trust in the corpos developing them. There were massive cross-platform compatibility problems, and neither were in any way designed for or even ready for a responsive web that displays well on different screen sizes. Accessibility was a big problem as well, given an entirely different accessibility paradigm was necessary within vs. the HTML+CSS shell around the embedded content.

Today, the web can do everything Flash + Java Applets could do and more, except in a way that's not proprietary but based on shared standards, one that's backwards-compatible, builds on top of foundational technologies like HTML rather than around, and can actually keep up with the plethora of different client devices we have today. And speaking of security — sure, maybe web browsers were pretty insecure back then generally, but I don't see how you can argue that a system requiring third-party browser plug-ins that have to be updated separately from the browser can ever be a better basis for security than just relying entirely on the (open-source!) JS engine of the browser for all interactivity.

I ask you for links and how many clicks and fucks it would take to make one with these, as opposed to back then. These are measurable, scientific things. Ergonomics is not a religion.

The idea that any old website builder back in the day was more "ergonomic" while even approaching the result quality and capabilities of any no-code homepage builder solution you can use today is just laughable. Sorry, but I don't really feel the burden of proof here. And I'm not even a fan of site builders, I would almost prefer building my own site, but I recognize that they're the only (viable) solution for the majority of people just looking for a casual website.

Besides — there's nothing really preventing those old-school solutions from working today. If they're so much better than modern offerings, why didn't they survive?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago

But why? What’s bad about this?

What I said, literally.

But the web can support many more advanced use-cases than that.

Which can be done with something embeddable, and not by breaking a hypertext system.

So you can see that other people have different needs to yours, but you think those shouldn’t be considered? We’re arguing about the internet. It’s a pretty diverse space.

If those people don't consider mine, then I don't consider theirs. If I must consider theirs, they must consider mine.

Look, I’m not saying that the web is the most coherent platform to develop for or use, but it’s just where we’re at after decades of evolving needs needing to be met.

That says nothing. It's a market\evolution argument. Something changes tomorrow and that will be the result of evolution. Somebody uses a different system and that's it for them.

That said, embedded interactive content is absolutely not better than what we have now. For one, both Flash and Java Applets were mostly proprietary technologies, placing far too much trust in the corpos developing them.

And today's web browsers are as open as Microsoft's OOXML. De facto proprietary.

There were massive cross-platform compatibility problems,

For Flash? Are you sure? I don't remember such.

and neither were in any way designed for or even ready for a responsive web that displays well on different screen sizes.

Nothing was. Doesn't tell us anything.

Accessibility was a big problem as well, given an entirely different accessibility paradigm was necessary within vs. the HTML+CSS shell around the embedded content.

Yes, but applet's problems in that wouldn't spread to the HTML page embedding it. Unlike now.

Today, the web can do everything Flash + Java Applets could do and more, except in a way that’s not proprietary but based on shared standards, one that’s backwards-compatible, builds on top of foundational technologies like HTML rather than around, and can actually keep up with the plethora of different client devices we have today.

I've already said how it's similar to OOXML. Only MS documented their proprietary at the moment standard of their proprietary program and made it open, while Chromium is itself open, but somehow that doesn't make things better.

And speaking of security — sure, maybe web browsers were pretty insecure back then generally, but I don’t see how you can argue that a system requiring third-party browser plug-ins that have to be updated separately from the browser can ever be a better basis for security than just relying entirely on the (open-source!) JS engine of the browser for all interactivity.

That's similar to the Apple walled garden arguments. It's valuable in areas other than security because of separating power between some browser developer and some plugin's developer. And fighting monoculture is also good for security.

Also people still use plugins, still separately updated, which still get compromised.

Also plugins can be properly sandboxed.

The idea that any old website builder back in the day was more “ergonomic” while even approaching the result quality and capabilities of any no-code homepage builder solution you can use today is just laughable. Sorry, but I don’t really feel the burden of proof here. And I’m not even a fan of site builders, I would almost prefer building my own site, but I recognize that they’re the only (viable) solution for the majority of people just looking for a casual website.

Sorry, I still do feel that burden of proof. Because for a static site like in 2002 I'd just export a page from OpenOffice and edit some links, and then upload it.