Page 1 of 1

Not specifically Slimjet, but may be relevant going forward.

Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:23 am
by Passenger
Google reveals new schedule for 'phasing out support for Chrome Apps across all operating systems'
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/1 ... g_systems/

What the headline says.

Re: Not specifically Slimjet, but may be relevant going forward.

Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:58 pm
by Tweakerz
I think, make that I hope this is specific to Chrome only... in which case I don't really care since the backend of browsers built on Chromium will have whatever the makers of the browser decide on. In this case, it seems like Google (that makes Chrome) will remove things but that doesn't mean all others that also use Chromium will do the same.

Maybe I am misreading this all wrong or maybe you were thinking of this to mean Chromium when you read about Chrome? They are different but often confused so I feel like maybe that is the case here?

Re: Not specifically Slimjet, but may be relevant going forward.

Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:54 am
by oftentired
This does not effect chrome extensions. So... I don't see it having an impact on Slimjet. Or did I miss something?

Re: Not specifically Slimjet, but may be relevant going forward.

Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:10 am
by Tweakerz
oftentired wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 2:54 am
This does not effect chrome extensions. So... I don't see it having an impact on Slimjet. Or did I miss something?
Seems right, looks like Chrome Apps, not Chrome Extensions which differ.

"Another major difference between Chrome extensions and web apps is the fact that while extensions are used to enhance the functionality of the Chrome Browser, web apps run within the browser having a different user interface. Unlike web applications, extensions have little or sometimes no UI component"
From: http://www.chromeplugins.org/extensions ... ifference/

Re: Not specifically Slimjet, but may be relevant going forward.

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2020 3:39 am
by Passenger
Google: You know we said that Chrome tracker contained no personally identifiable info? Forget we ever said that
The Register
Google has stopped claiming that an identifier it uses internally to track experimental features and variations in its Chrome browser contains no personally identifiable information.

In February, Arnaud Granal, a software developer who works on a Chromium-based browser called Kiwi, claimed the X-client-data header, which Chrome sends to Google when a Google webpage has been requested, represents a unique identifier that can be used to track people across the web. As such, it could run afoul of Europe's tough privacy regulations.

When The Register reported these claims, Google insisted the X-client-data header includes information about the variation of Chrome being used, rather than a unique fingerprint. "It is not used to identify or track individual users," the ad giant said.

The Register has no reason to believe the X-client-data header was ever used to track and identify people across websites – Google has better ways of doing that. Concern about the identifier has more to do with insufficient disclosure, inaccurate description, legal compliance, and the possibility that it might be abused for identifiable tracking.

...

Re: Not specifically Slimjet, but may be relevant going forward.

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 7:11 am
by Passenger
Google calls a halt on Chrome 82, but the version 83 beta has arrived early - so it's coding and bug finding time ahead
The Register
...

Planned technical changes in that release were moved to Chrome 83, which is set to debut in mid-May – three weeks earlier than initially planned. The beta version of Chrome 83 has some define pluses, including a safer way to access abusable brower profiling capabilities and various useful features like the ability to detect barcodes in web apps.

But Chrome 83 also adds support for two new HTTP headers – Cross-Origin-Embedder-Policy and Cross-Origin-Opener-Policy. These provide a way to use browser profiling features that raise the risk of side-channel attacks, like Spectre, by limiting the loading of cross-origin (cross-domain) resources and windows.

...