5 ms·

Some also claim that Google kills innovation. Synchronous interception of requests allows developers to program sophisticated rules to fight malicious resources

by gildas 7y ago

Some also claim that Google kills innovation. Synchronous interception of requests allows developers to program sophisticated rules to fight malicious resources. In the future, they will only have a regular expressions list to block domains. It will be much easier for malicious actors to bypass this feature.

scarface74 7y ago
It also allows developers to intercept your entire browsing history. If you care about your privacy, why would you let a random third party intercept all of your browsing history?
- gildas 7y ago
  I consider everything to be a matter of risk in terms for example of privacy. By installing an extension like uBlock, I am indeed taking the risk you mentioned. However, I consider that the risk will be much higher when installing an extension that is based only on a list of regular expressions for the reason I mentioned. If uBlock did a bad thing, I'll know very quickly and all I'll have to do is install an alternative extension. I am also a developer. I would like to continue to have the right to code such extensions for myself.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So how many consumers would know if uBlock did something bad? Should we optimize security for the minority or the majority?
    - gildas 7y ago
      Google would remove uBlock from my PC before I even know it and I would notice it very quickly (unfortunately). A personal computer has always been very complicated and using it has always been a risk in itself. I remember a time when a virus could damage the computer's hardware, and someone who knew how to program in BASIC (edit: or LOGO) was not considered as a "minority". My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. No need to optimize, I switched to Firefox, the browser for the minorities ;). I really liked Chrome though.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. How has that been working for the last 30 years? Why would it start now? Computers have been mainstream consumer appliances since the “multimedia PCs” were a thing in the mid 90s. Most people no more want to program computers than they want to fix their own cars.
    - hnaccy 7y ago
      Why is better to fix adblocking capabilities at model that is borderline insufficient now let alone in 10 years. There is arms race and you want adblockers (good guys) to give up any improvements in perpetuity, that is a recipe for losing. Me installing uBlock for parents has improved their browser experience and security. I'd rather risk uBlock being compromised and having to phone them to uninstall it than have them being at the mercy of adtech, spyware, and scammers companies in 5 years.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        How many incidents have we seen where the ad blockers are the bad guys? I don’t recall seeing any third party ads when browsing with Safari on iOS with 1Blocker that uses this architecture.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Edge for Android has that model. While trying it, I frequently got stopped by adblocker blockers. Firefox for Android runs uBlock Origin and never has that problem.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
bradknowles 7y ago
I want whitelist-only. No blacklists, unless that's something to be applied after the whitelisting step. So, no -- Google's method is not sufficient.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You really want an extension that limits your ability to access only a certain number of websites?
- therealx 7y ago
  Sounds kinda like a firewall would server you better. Not that I don't think you should or shouldn't be able to have this feature.
closeparen 7y ago
It’d be interesting to have one sandbox that can synchronously intercept requests, and one sandbox that can make its own requests, but only a one way communication channel between them. So the interceptor part can have its own stateful logic and access the blacklist, but not exfiltrate your history.

by gildas 7y ago

scarface74 7y ago

It also allows developers to intercept your entire browsing history. If you care about your privacy, why would you let a random third party intercept all of your browsing history?

gildas 7y ago
I consider everything to be a matter of risk in terms for example of privacy. By installing an extension like uBlock, I am indeed taking the risk you mentioned. However, I consider that the risk will be much higher when installing an extension that is based only on a list of regular expressions for the reason I mentioned. If uBlock did a bad thing, I'll know very quickly and all I'll have to do is install an alternative extension. I am also a developer. I would like to continue to have the right to code such extensions for myself.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So how many consumers would know if uBlock did something bad? Should we optimize security for the minority or the majority?
  - gildas 7y ago
    Google would remove uBlock from my PC before I even know it and I would notice it very quickly (unfortunately). A personal computer has always been very complicated and using it has always been a risk in itself. I remember a time when a virus could damage the computer's hardware, and someone who knew how to program in BASIC (edit: or LOGO) was not considered as a "minority". My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. No need to optimize, I switched to Firefox, the browser for the minorities ;). I really liked Chrome though.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      My point of view is that we need to make users aware of the risks and make them more responsible because things will not get any easier. How has that been working for the last 30 years? Why would it start now? Computers have been mainstream consumer appliances since the “multimedia PCs” were a thing in the mid 90s. Most people no more want to program computers than they want to fix their own cars.
  - hnaccy 7y ago
    Why is better to fix adblocking capabilities at model that is borderline insufficient now let alone in 10 years. There is arms race and you want adblockers (good guys) to give up any improvements in perpetuity, that is a recipe for losing. Me installing uBlock for parents has improved their browser experience and security. I'd rather risk uBlock being compromised and having to phone them to uninstall it than have them being at the mercy of adtech, spyware, and scammers companies in 5 years.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      How many incidents have we seen where the ad blockers are the bad guys? I don’t recall seeing any third party ads when browsing with Safari on iOS with 1Blocker that uses this architecture.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Edge for Android has that model. While trying it, I frequently got stopped by adblocker blockers. Firefox for Android runs uBlock Origin and never has that problem.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

bradknowles 7y ago

I want whitelist-only. No blacklists, unless that's something to be applied after the whitelisting step. So, no -- Google's method is not sufficient.

scarface74 7y ago
You really want an extension that limits your ability to access only a certain number of websites?
therealx 7y ago
Sounds kinda like a firewall would server you better. Not that I don't think you should or shouldn't be able to have this feature.

closeparen 7y ago

It’d be interesting to have one sandbox that can synchronously intercept requests, and one sandbox that can make its own requests, but only a one way communication channel between them. So the interceptor part can have its own stateful logic and access the blacklist, but not exfiltrate your history.