4 ms·
The developer of Tampermonkey has already raised this concern when Manifest v3 was first introduced.[0] [0] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!to
by ROARosen 5y ago
The developer of Tampermonkey has already raised this concern when Manifest v3 was first introduced.[0]
[0] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-extensions/hQeJzPbG-js https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chrom...
- hypertele-Xii 5y agoSeems to be exactly the intended effect. Tampermonkey essentially bypasses extension store security entirely by running "extensions" off-store, making people vulnerable to malware the browser vendor can't police.
- zarzavat 5y agoUsers could achieve even better security by turning their computers off.
- ROARosen 5y ago> Seems to be exactly the intended effect This API change is making it worse for Tampermonkey than for malware. "Malware" extensions canstill be explicitly "sideloaded" to Chrome in developer mode. Closing this API means Tampermonkey won't be able to run even when sideloaded. If this was truly their only concern they could have just blocked Tampermonkey and comparable extensions from the webstore. , rendering just as 'safe' as any other sideloaded chrome extension.