Hacker News Reader

Comment by AsakiIssa | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't expecting that at all! Had several tabs opened and was really confused for a few seconds while I tried to find the tab with 'youtube on autoplay'.

Firefox needs to show the 'play' icon for the audio tag.

View on HN

For what it's worth, Chrome tells you which tab audio is playing from, it's nice.

I think Chrome is able to do this because it separates tabs into processes, but I don't think there's a good way for Firefox to do it since everything is in a single process.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486262

I don't think this has to do with multiprocess. The instance of HTML engine (geckk?) just needs to track who used the audio API.

I think the problem with that is it doesn't work with Flash audio. With multiprocess browsers, the Flash audio can be associated with a tab, but that's awkward/not possible if everything is in the same process.

Well, Chrome still often shares the same process for groups of tabs. I think this particular feature has something more to do with a change they made to their plugin API.

Chrome didn't have this feature for a very long time, and if anything sounded like it was actually harder because of how Chrome handles their processes.

Now if only Chrome had a mute button in the same spot to shut it up.

Stuff like this is why NoScript and RequestPolicy were invented.

For making your life living hell in the name of overbearing security measures.

Ah yes. The occasional click to confirm this or whitelist that, that's definitively "living hell".

It's the users' resistance to the slightest inconvenience that makes security so hard.

It's really a hell. Average website over there is using at least 3 - 4 external domains for css, js, fonts and so. Getting a working website without nearly whitelisting many of them is highly improbable right now.

Yes but you gain a lot of interesting information about what's going on, plus you are back in control.

Whitelist places you trust. Keep things blocked that you don't like. If that breaks the experience, walk.

Sure. I used script blockers for a while. But after having to whitelist a huge number of them and loosing very long and precious time, I gave in. I do not put sensitive and important data on my computer. (Actually I was not doing that for a very long time even before giving in.) I always work on remote hosts.

Therefore I treat my desktop as a security research one. Of course I would not do that on my desktop I were really working with crackme binaries ;)

Additionally to then there's also the various things that track identity and behaviour. Tell me what you search and click, and I'll tell you what you think? (That's not fixed with a simple add-on of course.)

There is also google. But we use them in a way or not.

There are some nut-jobs or bad-ass people out there not using google, going with security enhanced phones and ddg. This does not make average or the 95percentile bad behaved.

This makes us only low security sensitive and targets.

Regarding "I do not put sensitive and important data on my computer" and "I always work on remote hosts", I must respectfully disagree. Never mind the fact that you set a bad example for newbies, being so caviler with your own safety harms the security of the rest of us. Downloading and executing random software off the Internet---the raison d'être of modern web browsers---is a good way to get owned. Just because you don't use your computer for anything important doesn't mean that it cannot be compromised and used to attack me. Plus, if you use your computer to log into other computers to do real work, then your computer is extremely important! A successful compromise would give attackers all the same remote access you have. Admittedly, that's not what your everyday, ordinary malware is after, but it's the principal of the thing that bothers me.

I'm not telling my setup is bullet proof. I'm just saying I gave in on some threats. I do not try to protect against all threats via all possible ways. I try to make my sensitive data to be unattractive and harder to get.

Latest part that you edited out was a question I would raise but it seems like you also think that would not hold.

Even though this setup is not secure. It's more secure than many everyday usage patterns. In a way at least..

It isn't generally that bad and if something wants 25 separate route tld's I often browse away.

For most people Ghostery and AdBlock Edge are good enough. I'm a pretty conservative, default-deny kind of hacker, so the results of my cost-benefit analysis are a little... different... than most. :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com