So in meiner Verwandtschaft gesehen. Oberes Management bei einer Spedition, vom Mechaniker hochgearbeitet. Der Inhaber verkauft die Firma, der Käufer vertickt sofort alle Assets und macht den Laden dicht. Schon sitzt man mit Mitte 50 beim Amt und erfährt, dass man für Managementposten unterqualifiziert und für alles andere überqualifiziert und zu alt ist. Langjährige Berufserfahrung zählt halt einen Dreck, wenn man kein BWL-Studium vorweisen kann.
Nach ein paar Jahren "nicht vermittelbar" wurde dann empfohlen, einfach in den Vorruhestand zu gehen. Keine weiteren Vermittlungsversuche und dann Frührente sobald möglich. Arbeitswille und -fähigkeit wären da gewesen, aber mit dem Profil wollte ihn halt keiner haben. Und schon wird aus einem Einzahler ein Auszahler.
I read about this a while ago and people then concluded that FROST is harder to exploit in real-world scenarios than in the lab. Still worth addressing and a fix shouldn't be too difficult, e.g. by adding small amounts of random latency to OPFS accesses. Firefox already does this with other APIs to make fingerprinting harder. Chromium doesn't because they love fingerprinting.
Honestly, I'm not thrilled with the OPFS model in general. Each page can randomly occupy part of your storage with you having no control over the process. You don't get asked. You can't even inspect the data. Even if it turns out to be useless for fingerprinting, the ability to use your storage invisibly with zero effort is not a power I want to hand out like candy in an environment that supposedly is assumed to be adversarial by default.
The only upside is that browsers do have a quota which is apparently shared between all instances of IndexedDB and OPFS. So the threat model of "use OPFS to fill up the user's entire storage" isn't plausible per se even if you have multiple tabs to attack with. Filling up the storage to evict other sites' stored data might actually work, though, and while it sounds like more of an annoyance, it might also become a step in some other attack.
Besides, quota size is entirely up to the browser; while Firefox uses 10% of total storage or 10 GB, whichever is lower, Chromium can in principle take up to 60% of total storage. When I tried, both a Firefox-based browser and a Chromium-based one had quotas of exactly 10 GB; I suspect that my distro's packagers configured the latter when the built the browser package.