←back to thread

1036 points deryilz | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.222s | 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 #
amluto ◴[] No.44548288[source]
No, MV3 really isn’t more secure. MV3 still allows extensions to inspect your requests — it just doesn’t allow extensions to block them.

It’s almost comical how weak the security/privacy argument for MV3 is. Chrome could have developed a sandboxed web request inspection framework to prevent data exfiltration, but they didn’t even try. Instead they nerfed ad blockers without adding any security.

replies(2): >>44551348 #>>44552700 #
1. cma ◴[] No.44552700[source]
Plus Google first entered the browser game with a toolbar for Internet Explorer that's main featured was it blocked popup ads.