3 ms·
Chrome has a good permissions model that i don't think can be much improved on. An ad-blocker needs access to data on every page you visit in order to do its jo
by _nedR 9y ago
Chrome has a good permissions model that i don't think can be much improved on. An ad-blocker needs access to data on every page you visit in order to do its job. I don't really see a way around it; Thats just how the web is constructed..
You can disable 3rd party scripts on your side (Firefox has Noscript addon for that; chrome should have something similar) but that may break the website you 're visiting
Workarounds : Disable add-ons in incognito mode, and conduct your important business there..
Or use a second chrome profile with no extensions for confidential stuff..
- mehrdadn 9y ago> Chrome has a good permissions model that i don't think can be much improved on. An ad-blocker needs access to data on every page you visit in order to do its job. I don't really see a way around it I don't imagine an ad blocker needs the ability to send data over the network. I also don't expect it should need to alter cookies or local storage, though perhaps there's a random counterexample somewhere? Most importantly of all, I think disable forced auto-update of extensions would help. It would make things a lot safer if users had control over when their extensions were updated. That way a malicious version could be taken down without having affected too many people.
- dpacmittal 9y agoChrome doesn't allow extensions running on https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/extensions https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/extensions, which means there's already provisions in code which disallows extensions to run on certain URLs. They could just add a setting where users can add to that list of pages.