Hacker News

34 points by tuananh 3 hours ago | 24 comments

sva_ 30 minutes ago

I recently flashed GrapheneOS on a Pixel for a friend. I was very surprised that you can do this entire process from the browser using WebUSB - the only downside being that it required me to launch Chromium.

Orygin 49 minutes ago

No thanks. I'll accept it in my browser when they fix the security implications this raises, and when the Spec is no longer in draft.

Retr0id 40 minutes ago

The security implications of not having WebUSB are having to install untrustworthy native drivers every time you want to interface with a USB device.

1313ed01 28 minutes ago

Sounds like something that could have a standalone usb-driver-container or special chromium fork for the 0.00001% of users that need it instead of bloating every browser with yet another niche API and the inevitable security holes it will bring.

rafram 26 minutes ago

On macOS, I think I've installed device drivers exactly once in the last decade, and they were for a weird printer.

PunchyHamster 32 minutes ago

You can have userspace drivers for usb devices in Linux

skydhash 34 minutes ago

That sounds like a Windows problem.

Retr0id 31 minutes ago

I'm not familiar with the Windows platform but although you can have userspace USB drivers on linux, you still need to be able to run code that can talk to the sysfs interface.

Lerc 29 minutes ago

The Linux problem is more

Hope every time you want to interface with a USB device.

monegator 26 minutes ago

Not really, as long as the firmware developers used OS 2.0 descriptors

(For the rare occurences that our customer is using 7 or earlier, we tell them to use zadig and be done with it.)

monegator 28 minutes ago

you do know microsoft OS 2.0 descriptors are a thing, right? or that you can force the unknown device to use WinUSB

but really most devices you want to interface to via webusb are CDC and DFU so.. problem solved?

Retr0id 24 minutes ago

I'm unfamiliar with the Windows platform but that sounds like something that still requires executing code locally.

monegator 18 minutes ago

Not sure what you mean.

Anyway OS 2.0 descriptors are a custom USB descriptor that basically tells the device to use WinUSB as the driver. The burden then is in the application that will have to implement the read/writes to the endpoints instead of using higher level functions provided by the custom driver.

If you ever developed software with libUSB, using WinUSB on the windows side makes things super easy for cross platform development, and you don't have to go through all the pain to have a signed driver. Win-win in my book.

pjc50 20 minutes ago

.. or HID ( https://usevia.app/ , for programmable keyboards)

monegator 16 minutes ago

yes, you can always use some nasty protocol over HID for your devices. But really most of what i do is one or multiple bulk endpoints so i can achieve full bandwidth (downloading firmware, streaming data, ...) OS2.0 made it possible to do it without having to write and sign a driver

zb3 35 minutes ago

What are the security implications this raises that downloading native programs (needed for example to flash my smartphone) doesn't raise?

gear54rus 47 minutes ago

And I'll just fire up a chrome instance which I specifically keep for when my daily driver firefox decides to spazz out and not implement basics in 2026 :'(

lpcvoid 39 minutes ago

How do you make sure that technically illiterate people don't just click away the requestDevice() popup? IMHO a browser offering device level USB access is a security nightmare and there is no way this can ever be made safe and convenient at the same time.

limagnolia 14 minutes ago

Isn't that the same excuse Gooogle is using to lrevent folks from installing what they want on Android phones?

gear54rus 15 minutes ago

You simply don't. This quest of saving idiots from themselves is not gaining anyone anything and meanwhile other people get more and more useless restrictions.

exe34 31 minutes ago

You can ask them to type one of the following sentences:

"I know what I'm doing, and giving a random website access to my USB host is the right thing to do."

"I'm an idiot."

zb3 33 minutes ago

They can click everything away, so maybe educate them or buy an ios device for your relatives instead of breaking computing for everyone else.

lpcvoid 30 minutes ago

Fair, but remember that we are the <~1% of people who even know what webusb is. I'm not sure I share your view on this.

Maybe an about:config switch to enable it would be enough to stop casuals from pwning their peripherals.

afavour 44 minutes ago

Looks to be a great proof of concept. No, running a standalone executable alongside the browser is not the way you'd want to do WebUSB. But it's great to see someone working on it.