"malicious" according to who? Somehow this article makes me think those trying to do things like this are on the pro-DRM side, which I absolutely abhor. The slow and forceful insertion of JS where it's not needed means users will increasingly need to inject and modify JS to retain control of their experience.
I think this was posted because the of the recent Npm malware fiasco. The malware monkey-patched native JS functions to replace strings that matched crypto addresses in certain the fetch, and XMLHttpRequest functions:
Considering there's no way to check whether a function is monkey-patched, this just tells me the JavaScript ecosystem was not designed with malicious actors in mind
I think the issue with this is that you'll never be able to have the deep integration current FMD implementations have (where you have Bluetooth beacons to track the phone even when it's "off") and also be able to use anything that requires a signed bootloader and OS (such as banking apps)
I think this article sidesteps what this bill also means: a return to cold-war-era thinking of "passive" advancement of military capabilities for the "just in case" scenario
"malicious" according to who? Somehow this article makes me think those trying to do things like this are on the pro-DRM side, which I absolutely abhor. The slow and forceful insertion of JS where it's not needed means users will increasingly need to inject and modify JS to retain control of their experience.
https://www.aikido.dev/blog/npm-debug-and-chalk-packages-com...
Considering there's no way to check whether a function is monkey-patched, this just tells me the JavaScript ecosystem was not designed with malicious actors in mind