webusb VS libwdi

> WebUSB is actually a W3C open standard.

This is misleading at best. Here’s what the actual spec says <https://wicg.github.io/webusb/>:

> This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track.

It’s an experimental spec by Google (observe the affiliation of the three editors: all Google); Mozilla has adopted a negative position on it <https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/#webusb>; WebKit has not remarked upon it.

This is such a lame argument. You want it to be true but have no evidence that it actually is true.

A lot of the Chrome team's "standards" have problems with accessibility, workability on mobile, security[0], privacy[1], or just battery life. Some are neat experiments that are or only will be used in the wild by advertisers to track and identify users.

Because the Safari/WebKit team doesn't have to chase users for revenue like Mozilla does they can afford to be more conservative with what Google "standards" they support. Being able to offer a tighter privacy posture or efficiency is part of the iOS/macOS sales pitch.

[0] https://github.com/WICG/webusb/issues/50

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/16/22387492/google-floc-ad-t...

Limiting it to installed apps still has the problem of users blindly agreeing to something that is fundamentally super dangerous. I don’t believe installing PWAs currently exposes any new security surface, so this would be a significant change, and worse still a persistent hazard with probably no indication of what’s going on when it’s in use. I think there’s still potential in the general concept, but it’d take work and is certainly not ready yet in any browser.

Yes, certain classes are restricted from access via WebUSB for security, https://wicg.github.io/webusb/#protected-interface-classes. But as the note says, it’s about balance: that list is necessary for security, but not sufficient.

They probably use WCID, which is a mechanism for devices to tell Windows that they are compatible with the generic WinUSB driver. Zadig is useful for older versions of windows, non-WCID devices, and when you want to override that auto-specified driver.

Here's more information from the author of Zadig: https://github.com/pbatard/libwdi/wiki/WCID-Devices

If you do that'll bring you here where you'll find everything you ever wanted to know about WCID.

Using this config files from zadig's github page, it (in my case) got all the correct settings from the start and all I need to do is click replace driver. Place the zadig.ini files in the same directory as your zadig.exe. You might have to choose the correct device.

USB descriptors are supported only up to 8.1 according to your link. And libwdi/zadig is useful links for me, thank you very much! I'll be used ones in my other projects. But I don't need to new USB driver in Windows due to I'll get much more problems with put all together in LabView. I want to use standard WIndows USB-Serial that always present and directly supported via VISA. The NI-VISA isn't using specific protocols for USB. The VISA is just an intermediate level for most of the serial protocols in the NI ecosystem. I'm operating low-level USB packets, commands, responses in the same manner as in C for example but from LabView. But I have to generate the specific INF file which needs for recognition of VISA for each one of the specific instances with a unique USB PID/UID. The problem is mandatory signing such INF files in Windows10 and I'm looking for any way to avoid this.