Polyfill supply chain attack hits 100K+ sites
sansec.io
The new Chinese owner of the popular Polyfill JS project injects malware into more than 100 thousand sites.

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.

  • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
    212·
    6 months ago

    Flash was magnitudes worse than the risk of JS today, it’s not even close.

    Accessibility is orthogonal to JavaScript if the site is being built to modern standards.

    Unfortunately preference is not reality, the modern web uses JavaScript, no script is not an effective enough solution.

      • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        6 months ago

        Well, by that measure, you don’t need JavaScript to make inaccessible sites, there are plenty of sites out there that ruin accessibility with just HTML and CSS alone.

        It’s always up to the developer to make sure the site is accessible. At least now it seems to be something that increasingly matters to search result rankings

        • parpol@programming.devEnglish
          21·
          6 months ago

          You really can’t. If it was only HTML and CSS, any accessibility program would be able to select any part of the page, and easily alter the CSS and HTML. That is next to impossible now because of JavaScript.

          It shouldn’t be up to the website developer. It should be up to the browser developer. You don’t blame a lemmy instance for poor accessibility with Jerboa.

      • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Flash ran as a browser plugin (as in not an extension, but a native binary that is installed into the OS and runs beside the browser, we basically don’t do this for anything now)

        Flash was pretty much on weekly security bulletins in the final years, arbitrary code execution and privilege escalation exploits were common, that’s why Adobe killed it.

        Flash was never safe and comparing JavaScript to it as a greater risk shows you’ve not fully understood the threat model of at least one of the two.

          • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            That’s literally the one main somewhat valid use case for plugins, and it’s basically because of DRM. A plugin that allows arbitrary code to run is a security nightmare, that’s why we don’t do it anymore.

            A lot of the security features you describe were added by browser vendors late in the game because of how much of a security nightmare flash was. I was building web software back when this was all happening, I know first hand. People actually got pissy when browsers blocked the ability for flash to run without consent and access things like the clipboard. I even seem to remember a hacky way of getting at the filesystem in flash via using the file upload mechanism, but I can’t remember the specifics as this was obviously getting close to two decades ago now.

            Your legitimate concerns about JavaScript are blockable by the browser.

            Flash was a big component of something called the evercookie—one of the things that led to stuff like GDPR because of how permanently trackable it made people. Modern JavaScript tracking is (quite rightfully) incredibly limited compared to what was possible with flash around. You could track users between browsers FFS.

            You’re starting to look like you don’t know what you’re talking about here.

              • 9point6@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                6 months ago

                Mate, actionscript was not only basically JavaScript with adobe vendor extensions, but it was literally a programming language! If that’s not arbitrary code, then you’ve got a crazy definition of what is! You’ve kinda unequivocally demonstrated that you have no idea what you’re talking about at this point, I’m afraid.

                And way to completely misunderstand the evercookie. The flash part was how it could jump between browsers, no browser cookie can do that. It was a combination of everything that made it such a problem.