3 ms·

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmdxxj/the-hack-millions-of-people-are-installing-themselves https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmdxxj/the-hack-millions-...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmdxxj/the-hack-millions-of-people-are-installing-themselves https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmdxxj/the-hack-millions-... > Last year, hackers phished Chris Pederick, who runs Chrome Web Developer, an extension with over one million users. Once they had grabbed Pederick’s developer login details, they swapped his extension on the Chrome Web Store with their own malicious version, designed to inject adverts into users’ browsers. Then in September, someone loaded the popular Chrome extension for file sharing service MEGA with code that could steal login details for Amazon, GitHub, Microsoft, and Google accounts, as well as pinch cryptocurrency keys. And a malicious browser extension appears to be behind a recent dump of private Facebook messages. Once hackers gain control over the extension, through hacking, coercion, or otherwise, they can replace code as they see fit. There's a lot more where that came from. Aside from hacking the extensions, a couple of years ago there were severe issues with people buying control of popular extensions and then converting them into malware.

tedivm 7y ago
That's a problem that would have been solved with requiring 2fa.
snowwolf 7y ago
So there's a few things to unpack here. > with their own malicious version, designed to inject adverts into users’ browsers Your very first example wouldn't be prevented by these changes. > 42% of malicious extensions use the Web Request API So 58% don't event need the Web Request API to do something malicious. So these changes don't really improve safety at all. > hacking the extensions, buying control of popular extensions Both these scenarios need to be addressed at a different level. Things like enforcing 2-factor for high value extension authors (> 100K installs or something). Also remember Google operate a walled garden here. No extension can be published on the store without being vetted. They should be identifying high profile/value extensions and subjecting them to additional checks. For me, and I'm sure many people, my biggest threat vector is ads. They threaten my security (malicious/malware laden ads), my privacy (tracking), and performance (slow, bloated ads). My ad blocker protects me every day from this threat vector. Google are now definitively weakening mine and a lot of other peoples protection in order to improve the security of the few. To me this does not seem like a reasonable compromise, especially when there are alternative ways to address their concerns. And I'm sorry, but I really don't trust the motivations of a company that makes billions of dollars a year off online advertising, that has publicly stated that Ad Blocking is a threat to their business model, to then be making a change that just so happens to cripple Ad Blockers.

tedivm 7y ago

That's a problem that would have been solved with requiring 2fa.

snowwolf 7y ago

So there's a few things to unpack here. > with their own malicious version, designed to inject adverts into users’ browsers Your very first example wouldn't be prevented by these changes. > 42% of malicious extensions use the Web Request API So 58% don't event need the Web Request API to do something malicious. So these changes don't really improve safety at all. > hacking the extensions, buying control of popular extensions Both these scenarios need to be addressed at a different level. Things like enforcing 2-factor for high value extension authors (> 100K installs or something). Also remember Google operate a walled garden here. No extension can be published on the store without being vetted. They should be identifying high profile/value extensions and subjecting them to additional checks. For me, and I'm sure many people, my biggest threat vector is ads. They threaten my security (malicious/malware laden ads), my privacy (tracking), and performance (slow, bloated ads). My ad blocker protects me every day from this threat vector. Google are now definitively weakening mine and a lot of other peoples protection in order to improve the security of the few. To me this does not seem like a reasonable compromise, especially when there are alternative ways to address their concerns. And I'm sorry, but I really don't trust the motivations of a company that makes billions of dollars a year off online advertising, that has publicly stated that Ad Blocking is a threat to their business model, to then be making a change that just so happens to cripple Ad Blockers.