A significant vulnerability in the WebP Codec has been unearthed, prompting major browser vendors, including Google and Mozilla (update: Mozilla has now

This affects all browsers and not just Chrome, as the media falsely reported it. Mozilla just rolled out a fix, and Brave is looking into it. This bug is likely related to the “zero-click” iOS 0day that was reported by Citizenlab last week.

  • TylerDurdenJunior@lemmy.mlEnglish
    786·
    1 year ago

    Well, brave IS just chrome for crypto bros, so I would guess them “looking into it” is just them waiting for Google to update chrome

    • klyde@lemmy.worldEnglish
      615·
      1 year ago

      Or it could be all the other features that are included that Chrome doesn’t have

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.worldEnglish
    427·
    1 year ago

    I have always disliked webp for its inconvenience when I try to save and share images. Nice to know people who actually know shit about it might have concerns also, I guess.

    • Troy Dowling@lemmy.worldEnglish
      112·
      1 year ago

      The only reason I know what webp is, is because its “that dumb format” that doesn’t play like a GIF in Signal.

      • lud@lemm.eeEnglish
        91·
        1 year ago

        Well at least it’s not a gif, because gifs really suck at animations.

        The quality is really bad because of its limited color and the file sizes are enormous because animations are just a series of images after each other without any compression or optimisation between them.

        • anlumo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          1 year ago

          There is optimization. Every frame in the gif can define a rectangle it’s drawn in on top of the previous image. This works fine for reduced color animations (like cartoons), but of course breaks completely for videos.

          • lud@lemm.eeEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Well, that’s something at least. I wonder how common its usage is.

        • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldEnglish
          31·
          1 year ago

          Pretty much, people stick to an ancient format from the stone age and then bitch to people who want to change it.

          Get ready to be called names if you say the truth.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      1 year ago

      Fucking hate that shit, I have to screenshot it when sending to the group chat cause it won’t upload webp.

    • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      now whilst i know why people like webp, maybe we could stop using formats owned by google…

      until jpegxl becomes viable (which it mainly isn’t because it compete[s/d] with webp), lets stick to nice formats not owned by tech giants, like apng?

      • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        1 year ago

        Problem is, it takes a huge brand like Google or Apple to push a new format for something basic like images. Do you know how many alternative image formats exist that have tried to be the next jpg/gif/png? Hundreds.

        I just really wish people would stop clinging to these old formats, especially gif. Maybe when the tech giants get some traction with webp, more open alternatives can get popular as well, once people realize that jpg and gif aren’t the end of everything, and app developers get off their fat asses and start supporting other formats too. It just needs to start somewhere.

        Just like ogg probably wouldn’t be a thing if commercial mp3 didn’t pave the way, or we probably wouldn’t have divx/h264… without Real Media and Quick Time. Signal wouldn’t be so popular either without the likes of Skype and Viber.

        Of course I’d prefer open, free standards from the start, but you can see how fucking lazy people are (both users and developers) to support new formats.

        That said, it’s not like webp is closed or anything, so I’m ok with it.

        • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.eeEnglish
          22·
          1 year ago

          jpegxl actually has pretty good support - affinity, photoshop, gimp, krita, etc. all support it fine

          it’s only chrome/electron that’s holding it back (even firefox supported it until chrome dropped support). i don’t think it’s lazyness

          i have no love for gif (hence i use apng), but all the other alternatives are either videos so show controls by default, not widely supported, or webp. i realise webp is objectively the better format for most things, but i still argue it’s existence is a net negative effect

          webp may be open (although actually i’d argue it isn’t, the licences for the decoder and the format itself are both very woolly), but as it’s actively contributing to enshittification by holding back truly open formats i’d say that doesn’t really matter

          • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            jpegxl actually has pretty good support - affinity, photoshop, gimp, krita, etc. all support it fine

            Sorry, 5 graphics programs isn’t “support”. You need support from the millon mobile apps, web sites and image and web libraries. A format that you can only use by yourself or with a handful professionals is useless in practice.

            Ed: look at the list of formats supported by XnView

            holding back truly open formats i’d say that doesn’t really matter

            There’s been hundreds of new image formats in the last ~20 years, and none has gotten anywhere.

            Even PNG needed a decade for some things to support it properly, and that one really had a brand new massive use case.

            People use gif to make videos for crying out loud, and bitch about webp all the time, that’s how massive the pushback against new formats is.

            Do you really think jpegxl would get anywhere by itself? No, it would be the same as with jpeg2000 and tons of other formats - first supported by a handful of programs, but not used by anyone else and then forgotten.

            • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.eeEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, 5 graphics programs isn’t “support”. You need support from the millon mobile apps, web sites and image and web libraries. A format that you can only use by yourself or with a handful professionals is useless in practice.

              i gave those because they’re the most pertinent programmes for people dealing with creating & editing images. there are mobile (or at least android) libraries; and web is the issue i’m talking about - it’s hampered by chromium. there are more here if you’re interested.

              and i’d say that’s not bad for a format that’s only a few years old

              Ed: look at the list of formats supported by XnView

              i don’t know what this is supposed to mean. xnview supports jxl

              There’s been hundreds of new image formats in the last ~20 years, and none has gotten anywhere.

              because png is good. i’m not defending gif or jpeg, they suck. but png is simple, fast to decode, and open by design. there have been better formats, but not paradigm shiftingly better. it may not be the best as an image format, but it is good

              Even PNG needed a decade for some things to support it properly, and that one really had a brand new massive use case.

              yeah that’s my point, jxl has been adopted faster than png or webp (it was only officially standardised in 2022!)

              People use gif to make videos for crying out loud, and bitch about webp all the time, that’s how massive the pushback against new formats is.

              i really don’t think many people use gif. most people use gifv or similar (usually webm) without realising it. apart from its very specific use case, gif sucks; so most software automatically converts to something else

              Do you really think jpegxl would get anywhere by itself? No, it would be the same as with jpeg2000 and tons of other formats - first supported by a handful of programs, but not used by anyone else and then forgotten.

              jpeg2k had major issues other than a lack of support - jxl has deliberately avoided those pitfalls

              • WhoRoger@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                i gave those because they’re the most pertinent programmes for people dealing with creating & editing

                That’s not how people use images. For an image format to be viable, you need your camera to support it, your gallery app/program to support it, the web sites you upload it to, the messaging platforms you share it through.

                If there’s a break in the chain, people will screenshot the picture as png and bitch to you that you’re using something weird.

                I’ve been trying to get people to use or support image formats for 15 years, previously as a tech journalist too, and the resistance is totally absurd. “Why change what works”, “just because it’s new doesn’t mean I have to use it” are the typical responses you get from everyone.

                i really don’t think many people use gif.

                Oh you’d be surprised… Gaming videos on Steam, screen recordings, porn clips by amateurs, or just random clips, the amount of low-res gifs with 10s of MB in size is crazy.

                jpeg2k had major issues other than a lack of support - jxl has deliberately avoided those pitfalls

                Sure, it’s shitty of Google to drop the support, but from experience I’m still unfortunately 100% sure it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.

                Heck, Apple has been using HEIF for years and that’s a trillion dollar company with a huge market share, and you still get shitton of places where you can’t use it.

                • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.eeEnglish
                  01·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not how people use images. For an image format to be viable, you need your camera to support it, your gallery app/program to support it, the web sites you upload it to, the messaging platforms you share it through.

                  yes. i agree. but that’s my exact point. if i make an image then upload it to the internet - the only software that’s involved is on my side (gimp, ps, whatever[1]) and the browser of the person viewing it. if it was supported in chromium, that’s automatically available in chrome, edge, vivaldi, brave, discord, element, spotify, whatever other chromium-embedded or electron apps you care to name. given the (unfortunate) prominence of electron-based programmes nowadays; that’s good enough for anyone who isn’t a professional, and they’re already fine. fuck it, it has the joint photographic experts group behind it - they’re quite a big name in photography

                  Oh you’d be surprised… Gaming videos on Steam, screen recordings, porn clips by amateurs, or just random clips, the amount of low-res gifs with 10s of MB in size is crazy.

                  meh, i haven’t seen any in the past ~5 years apart from ones specifically chosen for that 256 colour æsthetic; but i will believe you

                  Sure, it’s shitty of Google to drop the support, but from experience I’m still unfortunately 100% sure it wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.

                  Heck, Apple has been using HEIF for years and that’s a trillion dollar company with a huge market share, and you still get shitton of places where you can’t use it.

                  it did get places. it has got places. again, it’s very new and is already well supported

                  jpeg2k failed because of licencing and royalty issues[2]. heif hasn’t spread because of licencing and royalty issues. in my personal opinion, webp has licencing issues. png didn’t. jpeg (sort of) didn’t. jxl doesn’t.

                  but anyways, this isn’t a pro-jxl comment; it’s an anti-webp comment. i used jxl as an example of why webp, and its adoption, is making the web worse even though it’s better than png from a technical standpoint

                  1. or camera, you’re right; but i’m pretty sure that A) there are some cameras that support it already, and B) again, the jpe group have a considerable amount of sway so i’m sure they could persuade most camera manufacturers to support it ↩︎

                  2. i mean, as well as the fact it didn’t really bring anything new to the table. but that’s a whole other point ↩︎