[I]n Firefox the sandbox prohibits the CDM from fingerprinting the user’s device. Instead, the CDM asks the sandbox to supply a per-device unique identifier. This sandbox-generated unique identifier allows the CDM to bind content to a single device as the content industry insists on, but it does so without revealing additional information about the user or the user’s device. In addition, we vary this unique identifier per site (each site is presented a different device identifier) to make it more difficult to track users across sites with this identifier.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
The sandbox has also changed as have the requirements from vendors and content provider. and while firefox has protected the user better than others, this is also why Firefox is restricted to 720p by all content providers and will likely never get anything more than 720p because they do not allow the deep Operating system inspection and bypasses required to allow for HD and 4K content.
Currently only MS PlayReady on windows 10 is allowed to play back Netflix 4K content because PlayReady is built into the Operating System and treats the User as the enemy.
Mozilla in their ever ending chase to recover some market share has proven time and time again they will sacrifice privacy, and their more Technical User base in order to keep up with Chrome and get back some "regular users" So if Netflix says "We will give you HD content if you drop the sandbox and give widevine full access to the users system" I have little reason to believe Mozilla will not say "Yes Sir Mr. Hastings, anything you want"
I see this said many times, and it is highly over rated. while Technically speaking yes it calls for a "sandbox" but the need for "Computer Verification" means the CDM has to have full access to the entire system to verify the evil user is not attempting to capture the output. So the sandbox is not really protecting much unless the operating system itself has the CDM integrated as is the case for Windows. So on windows the CDM might be in a functional sandbox but on linux or any other non-proprietary system it is unlikely the sandbox will protect the user from a bad CDM, and given windows track record for security I would not put much faith in their sandbox either.
On the security front I do not believe it has changed much, this idea that the CDM will be more secure seems to be more PR Marketing than actual fact. Further given the refusal of companies to sign onto a Non-Aggression Pledge to protect researchers from DMCA liability it is likely any security issues in the CDM's will go unreported for fear of legal repercussions.
>>>Now, if you're against DRM, instead of complaining about W3C spec'ing it out and browser vendors implementing it. You should stop using DRM content.
Why can a person not do both? Why does a person that has ethical problems with DRM, and view the actual existence of DRM is a threat to their personal liberty be silenced or told to STFU as you have here?
Bad ideas, like DRM, should be continually criticized until they are dead. Vocal opposition as well as monetary boycotts are both valid and should be used to oppose bad ideas like DRM
One of the reason people are opposing video DRM so strongly at the w3c level is we fear it will not stop with Video. Images, Ebooks, Fonts even the web pages themselves are all a target for DRM Supporters. There will come a time that the F12 tools will be useless because the entire page itself is being served via a locked down CDM style plugin. This is just the first phase of killing the Open Web in its entirety