I want to build a task-specific web browser. For example, when the user uses that browser, the program should give options like these:
What is your interest today? Please select from the following:
computer science
data science
web development
psychology
biology
social media
etc.
After the user selects their interest, the browser should allow the user to search or study only those selected content types, so the user cannot get diverted from their task. The purpose of this browser is to avoid time-wasting. Because whenever someone tries to study or do some professional work, they get diverted by opening social media tabs and movies.
Which programming language will be suitable for making this browser?
You could do this by making a custom version of an existing browser, as guest271314 suggested, but that would require far more effort than necessary. All you need to make is a browser extension, such as a Firefox Add-on or a Chrome Extension. Browser extensions are usually written with JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. Each browser needs to have an extension made individually, but you can usually share a lot of the code between them. Read the linked documentation for help creating an extension for each browser.
There are already existing browser extensions like you describe that prevent you from visiting sites that you put on a list ahead of time, such as StayFocusd and WasteNoTime. Maybe you just want to use one of those extensions instead of writing a new one.
Related
I asked this question a little over a week ago on the Atom forums (link below), and didn't receive a response, so I am reposting it here in the hopes that someone may be able to provide insight on my problem.
Recently, I have taken up an open source project which uses Electron as it’s front-end. This project has two requirements: it must be cross-platform, and it must have an embedded web browser (which should be able to browse the web and render content like a typical browser). Considering the rather large footprint Electron has already netted my application, it seems like a bad idea to attempt to use another embedded web framework alongside it. So, in the interest of simplifying my project and retaining the UI built on top of Electron, I am looking into using Electron itself as the web browser. Here’s where I’ve come into a problem.
In a security page for Electron’s documentation, it is explicitly stated that,
it is important to understand … Electron is not a web browser
This quote comes within the context that Electron–or rather the code running on top of it–carries the unique ability to interact with the user’s operating system, unlike typical web applications. The page goes on to say,
displaying arbitrary content from untrusted sources poses a severe security risk that Electron is not intended to handle
At this point, I was tempted to give up on the idea of using Electron as an inbuilt browser, but further down on that same page, you can find another very interesting tidbit:
To display remote content, use the <webview> tag or BrowserView , [and] make sure to disable the nodeIntegration and enable contextIsolation
Link: https://electronjs.org/docs/tutorial/security#isolation-for-untrusted-content
First, in regard to using webviews, Electron’s own documentation recommends outright avoiding them:
Electron’s webview tag is based on Chromium’s webview , which is undergoing dramatic architectural changes. This impacts the stability of webviews , including rendering, navigation, and event routing. We currently recommend to not use the webview tag and to consider alternatives, like iframe , Electron’s BrowserView , or an architecture that avoids embedded content altogether.
Link: https://electronjs.org/docs/api/webview-tag
Seeing as though I cannot avoid embedded content, I opted to look into using a BrowserView, but what I found was not very motivating either. The advice, as it stands, is to do two things:
disable nodeIntegration
enable contextIsolation
After looking at the security and best-practices page, I will also append the following steps:
deny session permission requests from remote content (webcam, microphone, location, etc.)
catch webview elements in creation and strip default privileges
disable the creation of new windows
disable the remote module
That is a fair amount of steps to undergo in securing external content. Not to mention, there were several additional warnings scattered through the best practices page such as the following:
(On verifying webview options before creation)
Again, this list merely minimizes the risk, it does not remove it. If your goal is to display a website, a browser will be a more secure option.
Link: https://electronjs.org/docs/tutorial/security#11-verify-webview-options-before-creation
(On disabling the remote module)
However, if your app can run untrusted content and even if you sandbox your renderer processes accordingly, the remote module makes it easy for malicious code to escape the sandbox and have access to system resources via the higher privileges of the main process.
Link: https://electronjs.org/docs/tutorial/security#15-disable-the-remote-module
Not to mention, upon navigation to the BrowserView page, the whole class is listed as experimental.
This all isn’t even to mention the added attack surface created by Electron, such as a vulnerability in the webview component just last year: CVE-2018-1000136
Now, taking into account all of the above, numerous developers have still opted to create web browsers that routinely consume external and uncontrolled content using Electron.
Browser’s using Electron (linked directly from Electron’s website):
https://electronjs.org/apps/wexond
https://electronjs.org/apps/dot
https://electronjs.org/apps/beaker-browser
To me, it seems irresponsible to submit users to the above security implications as a trade-off for convenience.
That being said, my question is: can you safely, to the point at which you could ensure the integrity of your users, implement web browsing capabilities for uncontrolled content using Electron?
Thank you for your time.
Link to the original post:
https://discuss.atom.io/t/security-implications-in-electron-as-a-web-browser/70653
Some ideas that don't fit into a comment box:
[the project] must have an embedded web browser
So I presume then that this project isn't just a web browser. There's other content there that may have access to Node, but you just want the embedded-web-browser portion of it to be sandboxed appropriately, right?
Regarding the comments about <webview>, yes, it is considered unstable and Electron recommends using a BrowserView instead. I don't think that the fact that it's marked as "experimental" should necessarily deter you from using it (especially considering that the Electron team is recommending it [though maybe as the best of two evils]).
Experimental doesn't imply it's unstable. It can just mean that the Electron team is experimenting with this approach, but this approach may change in the future (at which point I would expect Electron to provide a transition path forward). Though this is one possible interpretation and ultimately Electron would have to comment on this.
The advice... is to do two things:
disable nodeIntegration
enable contextIsolation
I would also make use of the sandbox option inherited from BrowserWindows. BrowserView's docs on the constructor options say:
webPreferences Object (optional) - See BrowserWindow.
which tells me that BrowserView accepts the same options as BrowserWindow.
You would set it up like so:
new BrowserView({ webPreferences: {
sandbox: true,
nodeIntegration: false,
contextIsolation: true,
preload: "./pathToPreloadScript.js"
}});
See more information about this approach here. The preload script is what would expose some Node IPC APIs to the sandboxed content you're loading. Note the Status section at the bottom, which says:
Please use the sandbox option with care, as it is still an experimental feature. We are still not aware of the security implications of exposing some Electron renderer APIs to the preload script
If the content you're loading in the BrowserView never needs to communicate back to the application, then you don't need a preload script at all and can just sandbox the BrowserView.
After looking at the security and best-practices page, I will also append the following steps:
deny session permission requests from remote content (webcam, microphone, location, etc.)
catch webview elements in creation and strip default privileges
disable the creation of new windows
disable the remote module
Sure, those sound reasonable. Note that if your embedded browser needs to be able to open new windows (via window.open or <a target="_blank" />) then you'd have to allow popups.
That is a fair amount of steps to undergo in securing external content.
Sure, but is your main concern with the security of the app, or with how much work it takes to make it secure? Browser developers need to consider similar things to ensure webpages can't get access to the OS. It's just part of the game.
Again, this list merely minimizes the risk, it does not remove it. If your goal is to display a website, a browser will be a more secure option.
This is just saying that if all you're trying to do is display a website, then just use a browser since that's what they're there for.
If you need to do other things, well then you can't use a browser, so you'll have to make your own app, making sure it's reasonably secure.
I think that if you follow what's recommended in the Security document and keep up to date with new Electron releases, then you're doing the best you can do.
As for whether that's good enough, I can't say. It depends on what you're developing and what you're trying to protect against.
However, my thoughts can't substitute the more expert opinions of those on the Electron team. This question could certainly use some guidance from them.
When submitting updates for our extension, we receive the following message with rejection from the Chrome store:
"To have your item reinstated, please ensure:
The purpose of the extension is clear to users; and
The extension either limits its functionality to a narrow focus area of subject matter or to a narrow browser function.
To serve multiple purposes with your extensions, please package each purpose as a separate extension."
Does anyone know the criteria used when determining if the purpose is clear or if the extension is trying to do too much? Our extension is used to demonstrate metrics more conveniently that our clients would normally go to our webpage to see, so it shows a few different but very related items (all of which fit the central theme of showing connected metrics).
Check the Chrome Extension Quality Guideline:
Extensions Quality Guidelines
An extension must have a single purpose that is narrow and
easy-to-understand. Do not create an extension that requires users to
accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier
and a news headline aggregator, or downloads a local executable. If
two pieces of functionality are clearly separate, they should be put
into two different extensions, and users should have the ability to
install and uninstall them separately. For example, functionality that
displays product ratings and reviews, but also injects ads into web
pages, should not be bundled into a single extension. Similarly,
toolbars that provide a broad array of functionality or entry points
into services are better delivered as separate extensions, so that
users can select the services they want.
This is further explained in the FAQS page answering these questions:
Why did Google launch a “single purpose” Chrome extensions policy?
Where can I find the “single purpose” policy?
What does “single purpose” actually mean?
I was wondering if it's possible to capture a screenshot and/or record my computer screen(s) via a website?
If it is possible, what languages would I need to learn/code? I already have intermediate knowledge of HTML, CSS, JavaScript, jQuery, and PHP.
In other words: I want to have the ability to capture/record my screen (not the website) via using a website (not an application).
Thanks!
This is not possible. Web sites are very deliberately given only restricted access to your computer for security reasons. Imagine the havoc that could result if a malicious web site were able to see and capture what was on your screen--banking information, your confidential e-mails, etc. Even if the user had to give permission for this level of access, it would still be way too easy to trick a user into giving that permission.
The closest I could find/think of was http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/screen_recorder, but even then you have to download a launch plugin. I agree with #DLH. This is for your protection.
My favorite screen recorder is ScreenPresso - it is always running in background, and repurposed the PrtScn button as its launch key.
I know that Apple products like the iPad or the iPhone have trouble with flash apps.
What web development tools should I use in order to avoid compatibility issues when creating a website? My only constraint is that the languages must provide for interactivity and animation - such as in jQuery.
HTML, CSS, and PHP are a few that I can think of that will behave on 99% of all internet enabled devices.
What tools & languages are available to use when creating a website intended to be viewed on any device's internet "explorer"?
Should I just stick to HTML, CSS, & PHP? I want a certain level of interactivity so that, for example, a user can hover over images and have pop-ups containing data to appear... or when an object is clicked, an action can happen without a page reload.
Can someone point me in the right direction and help me develop a list of languages that are all-device friendly?
I am familiar with programming in several web-focused languages, I'm just wondering which ones to stay away from. Certain ones will limit the devices that can view the site and besides that constraint, the site needs to be interactive and animated.
HTML, CSS, PHP, JQUERY are truly your best bet for developing for a wide range of devices. If the scope of devices is the main goal I would stay away from using HTML5 and CSS3. You still may run into problems using much jquery with IE7 below. Mobile browsers on the other hand are much more advanced or up to date with standards then desktop browsers. I would suggest creating two versions of your application. One dedicated to running on mobile devices and one for desktop browsers. It is a shame apple wouldn't support flash applications. If all you need is hoovers for interaction you won't even need jquery / but for the other it will be useful.
The "Web" is a name for the concept of having interlinked documents accessible over the internet. Therefore, to have a website you really only need a document able to link to other documents, namely HTML.
HTML is not really a programming language or a tool though, it is a document format.
If you want to make a website you need use HTML to Markup what you're writing. Then you use CSS to format different sections of the document you marked up.
PHP though, is completely separate from this, PHP is for creating dynamic HTML, or any document on the server side.
If you want to achieve a flash-effect on a site you use Javascript to modify the page content (HTML) and appearance (CSS).
If you need to learn HTML/CSS I would highly recommend http://htmldog.com/
As per the question, HTML CSS and Javascript are pretty much the only mobile-browser compatible method for website content as they don't need plugins.
What exactly are you trying to do?
I was thinking to add meta tag always in all the websites.
That will trigger google chorme frame to load for users who already installed. I can see the benefits but is there any concerns or facts that I should know before I do that?
Testing in google chrome is enough or testing in google chrome frame explicitly required?
Thanks
Note: please do not mention current know problems "print" and "download" issue. I'm sure those will get fixed soon :)
The only argument against chrome frame that I have seen so far is Microsoft's - "Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attach area for malware and malicious scripts."
Also, you may run into problems with frames. If you have chrome frame on your page and someone has that page iframed on their site you may run into some problems. More info:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-chrome-frame/browse_thread/thread/d5ffe442658bc60e/e6d7a4c1c179c931?lnk=gst&q=iframe
You should only need to test in Chrome Frame for (X)HTML, CSS, and JavaScript...basic stuff. If you are using AJAX (while trying not to break the back button), worried about caching, cookies (accessed via javascript), or other potentially browser-specific browser interactions I suggest testing on the IE+CF platform...at least until the CF team announces 100% interoperability between CF and IE.
Check out the CF Google group for more issues.
Are there any concerns or facts you should know? Yes: Not everyone has Google Chrome Frame installed.
You are adding a new user agent that you will need to test and debug against, without removing the need to test and debug the user experience for other browsers (notably plain IE by itself).
If you don't make the IE user experience equivalent to the Google Chrome experience, then you are alienating a significant percentage of users. Depending on your website and its expected users, the impact of this may range from undesirable to unacceptable. If you do make the user experience equivalent, then there is no point in adding the meta tag.