zlacker

>>ColinW+(OP)
This is kind of overblown isnt it?

I remember sites doing all sorts of hacks to identify and shut down IE back in the day. "Works best in Chrome/Firefox".

"The proposal calls for at least the following information in the signed attestation:

    The attester's identity, for example, "Google Play".
    A verdict saying whether the attester considers the device trustworthy.

"

So a user agent string and a weak attestation?

This seems an overcomplex nothingburger.

>>protoc+vY
And if the "attester" decides that IceWeasel on Ubuntu (or Firefox with uBlock/uMatrix/NoScript) isn't "trustworthy," but (unmodified) Chrome is "trustworthy," you've just created vendor lock-in.

That's not a "nothingburger" IMHO.

>>nobody+F01
The same proposal suggests that users who fail the attestation still access the content. Which is apparently how the Apple version of this same protocol already works.