clarify browser_plugins table is referencing basically unsupported CNPAPI tech #7651
Conversation
specs/darwin/browser_plugins.table
Outdated
| @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ | |||
| table_name("browser_plugins") | |||
| description("All C/NPAPI browser plugin details for all users.") | |||
| description("All C/NPAPI browser plugin details for the user context. C/NPAPI has been deprecated on all major browsers. To query for plugins on modern browsers, try: `chrome_extensions` `firefox_addons` `safari_extensions`.") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure what "for the user context means", so I don't think this adds clarity.
As a side note, I think the safari_extension table might also be somewhat out of date
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it's not something I know exactly how to communicate.
What I'm trying to convey with the "user context" thing is that user_data=True in the attributes below. I think userData=True means that it's untrue that it returns "plugin details for all users" as it currently says, right?
Not exactly sure how to communicate that clearly... The osquery wiki states:
**user_data=True**: This tells the caller that they should provide a `uid` in the query predicate. By default the table will inspect the current user's content, but may be asked to include results from others.
Maybe to be standard, we ought to use that language here? "plugin details for the current user's content."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Any idea what's wrong with the safari table? Could be documented too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we should mention anything about user_data here. It feels too ad-hoc. I think it would make more sense to figure out a uniform approach
|
@directionless yes! I think we could have some attribute that's like That's a bit more complex and I am gone for the next two weeks. I was thinking this is an interim solution (and the note about using the browser-specific tables might be useful separate from deprecation anyway). |
My thought exactly. Also, that it's complex |
|
@directionless @zhumo I'm going to merge this, while I've tracked the desire for marking deprecated tables here: #7666 |
Problem
The naming of the table
browser_pluginsis pretty expansive. As a newbie, I thought I could just query it for everything! Turns out there are browser-specific tables and this table, despite it's name, references tech that is no longer supported across major browsers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI#Support).This PR adds some language around that to try alleviate the potential confusion and also communicate to the user that the CNPAPI is widely no longer supported.
Broader considerations
Maybe this is a first step towards getting rid of this table?