Oh my god. This is the pinnacle of stupidity and stuff like this is why over time extensions will lose functionality until they will be removed completely. Brow

Oh my god. This is the pinnacle of stupidity and stuff like this is why over time extensions will lose functionality until they will be removed completely. Browser vendors understandably want blunders like this to not be happening. We're yelling at browser vendors for locking down their browsers more and more and for removing more and more features that allow developers more native access, but then stuff like this happens. Who thought that exposing the full native OS API via a (cumbersome) scripting language was a good idea? Why does this need to be a browser extension and not something I need to explicitly install on my machine? Java Applets at least had a sandbox (albeit with flaky security). They have gone away because of security concerns, but as people still need some native access, people build stuff like this that is infinitely worse than what Java has ever been. Instead of a single sandbox, we're now relying on an unlimited amount of only mildly competent developers coming up with elaborate schemes that do nothing but provide a slight bit of obscurity. That uuid and the base64 encoding of the library name and function calls point to the fact that the developers felt uncomfortable, which is good I guess. That they then chose to use such an impotent method of protection is less so. At this point, why did they even bother? I'm starting to think that we are actually worse off now than we were in the age of Java Applets and NSAPI plugins