←back to thread

1034 points deryilz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
krackers ◴[] No.44544544[source]
>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.

So they admit that MV3 isn't actually any more secure than MV2?

replies(4): >>44544732 #>>44547024 #>>44548392 #>>44548589 #
Neywiny ◴[] No.44544732[source]
I'd be shocked if anyone actually believes them. This article starts with the obvious conflict of interest. Of course letting an extension know what websites you visit and what requests are made is an insecure lifestyle. But I still do it because I trust uBO more than I trust the ad companies and their data harvesters.
replies(6): >>44544764 #>>44544794 #>>44544922 #>>44546339 #>>44547722 #>>44548288 #
qwertox ◴[] No.44547722[source]
What I don't understand is why Google doesn't offer users the ability to add some extension ids into some whitelist to allow them using very sensitive permissions.

Force those extensions to have an prominent icon on the UI with a clear tooltip asking "did you install this yourself [No]" for easy removal, in case someone else did install it without you knowing.

There are so many ways to make this work, but they have zero interest in it.

replies(1): >>44548230 #
1. cyberpunk ◴[] No.44548230[source]
You really don’t understand why? Money.