←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
zulban ◴[] No.44546901[source]
I don't "bypass" Chrome when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Firefox. I don't "bypass" Windows when they want to melt my brain with their business model, I use Linux. No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" can't instead take action that is simpler, long lasting, and easier. Do people need to jerked around 50 times for 20 years before realizing it will keep happening and their "bypasses" are just temporary bandaids?
replies(25): >>44546992 #>>44547048 #>>44547056 #>>44547069 #>>44547113 #>>44547116 #>>44547135 #>>44547149 #>>44547168 #>>44547299 #>>44547355 #>>44547435 #>>44547619 #>>44547764 #>>44547831 #>>44547854 #>>44547934 #>>44547979 #>>44547987 #>>44547998 #>>44548000 #>>44548065 #>>44548153 #>>44551102 #>>44552201 #
mrcsharp ◴[] No.44547056[source]
> No idea why so many "hackers" doing "bypasses" ....

Because that's what it means to be a hacker. Yes, installing Firefox is simpler (and I'm a Firefox user) but I respect the effort to overcome Google's measures in disallowing certain addons.

replies(3): >>44547567 #>>44548146 #>>44551592 #
whatshisface ◴[] No.44547567[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 using opt_webViewInstanceId actually had WebView permissions. For the report, I netted a massive reward of $0. They decided it wasn't a security issue, and honestly, I agree, because it didn't give extensions access to data they didn't already have.

The effort to overcome the community's chance at discovering the workaround?

replies(2): >>44547631 #>>44547841 #
1. mrcsharp ◴[] No.44547841[source]
The blog post shows clear effort that falls under the "hacker" umbrella. That I respect.

The author informing google of the exploit was not the complaint of the parent comment which I took issue with.