←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 10 comments | | HN request time: 1.906s | source | bottom
1. fracus ◴[] No.44545431[source]
> But I don't know how to make an adblocker, so I decided to report the issue to Google in August 2023. It was patched in Chrome 118 by checking whether extensions usin

Well, thanks for nothing?

replies(1): >>44545537 #
2. deryilz ◴[] No.44545537[source]
Author here, sorry. I don't think any open-source extension (especially large adblockers with millions of users) could actually get away with using this bug, because Google is paying close attention to them. It would've been patched immediately either way.
replies(2): >>44546909 #>>44547391 #
3. physicles ◴[] No.44546909[source]
You’re right, and good on you for paying attention to the human/business context behind the code.
4. deryilz ◴[] No.44547625{3}[source]
Hi, I appreciate your opinion, but really disagree. First of all, this is one bug, and most of the ones I find don't "act against user's interests" (not that this one could have been used effectively without being patched anyway). Doing bug finding is how I make a difference and a skill I feel proud of.

I USED to keep bugs (read: exploits) for myself without sharing them, but after a while I realized it was not worth it and my skills were basically going to waste. You can say philosophical stuff about ads if you want but bug finding for me is a fun challenge with a good community. I'm not pretending Google is my best friend.

Plus, doing this gets me a bit of money. It's either this or I work summers at a grocery store, and I prefer this.

replies(1): >>44547735 #
5. deryilz ◴[] No.44547728{3}[source]
Also, dude, from your other comments: "What a selfish dickhead, helping them make better nooses to put around everyone's necks (including his own)."

And "People like this are enemies of freedom and should be called out publicly."

What the ?

replies(1): >>44547919 #
6. jonas21 ◴[] No.44547735{4}[source]
Yes, this is a mature way of looking at things.
replies(1): >>44547922 #
7. ifwinterco ◴[] No.44548414{6}[source]
Google can see extension code, there's no way you could have used this to make an adblocker without them patching it.

You're inventing a moral dilemma here that simply doesn't exist

replies(1): >>44564210 #
8. IshKebab ◴[] No.44550711{3}[source]
He may be young but it seems like he has already learnt not to be patronising and wrong.
replies(1): >>44556267 #
9. userbinator ◴[] No.44564210{7}[source]
That's why you keep stuff like this quiet, instead of snitching to the enemy. But the vote patterns here clearly show who's trying to control the narrative.
replies(1): >>44572923 #
10. Anamon ◴[] No.44572923{8}[source]
You can either keep it quiet, im which case it's useless to the rest of us because no ad blocker would've been using it, or share it with developers, in which case I'm not sure the time it would've taken to write the exploit would've been worth it, for it to work the one or two days Google would've taken to notice and patch it.

No other decision here would have made much of a difference.