zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
Can somebody explain what are the practical implications of this?

>>ailef+73
The Browser application needs to pass a binary image check, and if the browser hash doesn't match Google database, you cannot proceed to the website (since your browser may be corrupted). A major big deal for non main-stream browser, and for non Google browser developers, extension developers (eg. AdBlock), etc. In summary, some websites (like banks, Netflix, etc) will no longer be available for non mainstream browser users. Also, even if you're using Google Chrome, you may need to run the latest version to satisfy the hash check. Every day, the number of broken websites will continue growing until all non Google Chrome users have a blocked internet.

>>smalls+r4
Can you please explain why a third party browser can’t lie about its hash, just like it can lie about it’s user agent?

>>nonane+Ba
> Can you please explain why a third party browser can’t lie about its hash, just like it can lie about it’s user agent?

Because that thing basically describes a proprietary plugin like Activex, Silverlight or Flash before it, so a third party browser which doesn't have that proprietary tech can't fake it, under pretense of "standard". The code of that plugin will not be open source, worse, it will act as a spyware on people's computers at the OS level.

It's like EME before and these proprietary techs have no place in a open standard spec.