FilterHN

nezza-_-

5 minutes ago

[-]

WebUSB is so great.

I can ship a cross-platform application that accesses a hardware device without having to deal with all the platform specifics, and with decent sandboxing of my driver.

I think one way to make it more "secure" against unwitting users would be to only support WebUSB for devices that have a WebUSB descriptor - would allow "origin" checking.

sva_

1 hour ago

[-]

I recently flashed GrapheneOS on a Pixel for a friend. I was very surprised that you can do this entire process from the browser using WebUSB - the only downside being that it required me to launch Chromium.

lxgr

16 minutes ago

[-]

Web USB and Web Bluetooth are amazing. I've used the former for the excellent Web MiniDisc [1], and the latter to flash custom firmware [2] on cheap Xiaomi Bluetooth LE thermometer/hygrometer devices that Home Assistant can pick up.

Truly opening new possibilities, since I wouldn't have been comfortable running some sketchy script or local binary.

[1] https://web.minidisc.wiki/ [2] https://github.com/pvvx/ATC_MiThermometer

infogulch

43 minutes ago

[-]

You can flash GrapheneOS on a Pixel from another pixel, no pc required at all. I've done it several times, this is what sold me on the utility of WebUSB. You can use GOS' own distribution of chromium, Vanadium, if you have a GOS device and you want to avoid Chrome.

afavour

1 hour ago

[-]

Looks to be a great proof of concept. No, running a standalone executable alongside the browser is not the way you'd want to do WebUSB. But it's great to see someone working on it.

14 minutes ago

[-]

Running directly in the browser is also not how I'd want to do USB.

afavour

4 minutes ago

[-]

When the alternative is downloading arbitrary executables I find the browser sandbox to be a reassurance.

Zopieux

7 minutes ago

[-]

And Web Serial reached mainline Firefox last week.

I hope Mozilla can eventually stop playing their silly role in the security theater of “but what if our users are dumb” and actually deliver those "power-user" features that would allow me to uninstall Chrome for good. Oh, and also, --app= flag please.

1 hour ago

[-]

No thanks. I'll accept it in my browser when they fix the security implications this raises, and when the Spec is no longer in draft.

Retr0id

1 hour ago

[-]

The security implications of not having WebUSB are having to install untrustworthy native drivers every time you want to interface with a USB device.

fhn

1 minute ago

[-]

why would you be using untrustworthy hardware to begin with?

1313ed01

1 hour ago

[-]

Sounds like something that could have a standalone usb-driver-container or special chromium fork for the 0.00001% of users that need it instead of bloating every browser with yet another niche API and the inevitable security holes it will bring.

rafram

1 hour ago

[-]

On macOS, I think I've installed device drivers exactly once in the last decade, and they were for a weird printer.

kristofferR

26 minutes ago

[-]

Most device drivers nowadays aint necessary to solely get the device working, but to get it working well. All keyboards will work out of the box without any drivers/webusb-pages, but good luck configuring rapid triggers on your Wooting keyboard or a DPI-switching macro on your Logitech mouse without it.

skydhash

1 hour ago

[-]

That sounds like a Windows problem.

Retr0id

1 hour ago

[-]

I'm not familiar with the Windows platform but although you can have userspace USB drivers on linux, you still need to be able to run code that can talk to the sysfs interface.

1 hour ago

[-]

Not really, as long as the firmware developers used OS 2.0 descriptors

(For the rare occurences that our customer is using 7 or earlier, we tell them to use zadig and be done with it.)

Lerc

1 hour ago

[-]

The Linux problem is more

Hope every time you want to interface with a USB device.

1 hour ago

[-]

you do know microsoft OS 2.0 descriptors are a thing, right? or that you can force the unknown device to use WinUSB

but really most devices you want to interface to via webusb are CDC and DFU so.. problem solved?

Retr0id

1 hour ago

[-]

I'm unfamiliar with the Windows platform but that sounds like something that still requires executing code locally.

1 hour ago

[-]

Not sure what you mean.

Anyway OS 2.0 descriptors are a custom USB descriptor that basically tells the device to use WinUSB as the driver. The burden then is in the application that will have to implement the read/writes to the endpoints instead of using higher level functions provided by the custom driver.

If you ever developed software with libUSB, using WinUSB on the windows side makes things super easy for cross platform development, and you don't have to go through all the pain to have a signed driver. Win-win in my book.

pjc50

1 hour ago

[-]

.. or HID ( https://usevia.app/ , for programmable keyboards)

59 minutes ago

[-]

yes, you can always use some nasty protocol over HID for your devices. But really most of what i do is one or multiple bulk endpoints so i can achieve full bandwidth (downloading firmware, streaming data, ...) OS2.0 made it possible to do it without having to write and sign a driver

PunchyHamster

1 hour ago

[-]

You can have userspace drivers for usb devices in Linux

scottbez1

36 minutes ago

[-]

How does the security of userspace drivers compare to having drivers within a sandboxed web environment with access to only the devices you’ve explicitly allowlisted?

zb3

1 hour ago

[-]

What are the security implications this raises that downloading native programs (needed for example to flash my smartphone) doesn't raise?

barnabee

18 minutes ago

[-]

None. People will follow any instruction presented to them when they think it will get them something they want. Mozilla’s stance here is infuriating.

gear54rus

1 hour ago

[-]

And I'll just fire up a chrome instance which I specifically keep for when my daily driver firefox decides to spazz out and not implement basics in 2026 :'(

yjftsjthsd-h

3 minutes ago

[-]

Are you calling WebUSB a basic feature? Because I'm willing to discuss whether we should have it, but that seems like an exaggeration.

lpcvoid

1 hour ago

[-]

How do you make sure that technically illiterate people don't just click away the requestDevice() popup? IMHO a browser offering device level USB access is a security nightmare and there is no way this can ever be made safe and convenient at the same time.

limagnolia

56 minutes ago

[-]

Isn't that the same excuse Gooogle is using to lrevent folks from installing what they want on Android phones?

baby_souffle

43 minutes ago

[-]

Essentially, yeah.

gear54rus

58 minutes ago

[-]

You simply don't. This quest of saving idiots from themselves is not gaining anyone anything and meanwhile other people get more and more useless restrictions.

17 minutes ago

[-]

Or you can just not give a loaded shotgun to every browser user on the off chance they need to interact with 1 (one) usb device per year.

exe34

1 hour ago

[-]

You can ask them to type one of the following sentences:

"I know what I'm doing, and giving a random website access to my USB host is the right thing to do."

"I'm an idiot."

zb3

1 hour ago

[-]

They can click everything away, so maybe educate them or buy an ios device for your relatives instead of breaking computing for everyone else.

15 minutes ago

[-]

> breaking computing for everyone else

How is not implementing a Draft spec, which may compromise security badly, breaking computing?

Overreacting much?

lpcvoid

1 hour ago

[-]

Fair, but remember that we are the <~1% of people who even know what webusb is. I'm not sure I share your view on this.

Maybe an about:config switch to enable it would be enough to stop casuals from pwning their peripherals.

barnabee

20 minutes ago

[-]

I’d be ok with an about:config switch, but given that many people will install anything, paste arbitrary text into terminals, and share their password/pin code with complete strangers for almost no reason, I think we need to stop making our tools less powerful in pursuit of an impossible goal.