4 ms·

The security argument seems pretty simple. The end goal is that legit extensions that people regularly install should not need to ask for dangerous permissions,

by jsnell 5y ago

The security argument seems pretty simple. The end goal is that legit extensions that people regularly install should not need to ask for dangerous permissions, because a) it teaches the users that it's normal and b) since the extensions can become compromised later and abuse the permissions. Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and modify every single web page you use. That's fucking scary. If adblockers (and other classes of legit and common extensions) can be migrated to a safe API, it makes the unrestricted and dangerous API much more manageable since what's left is much less likely to be legit or something people actually care about. For example you can have enhanced review processes, warn users more forcefully about the danger, start limiting the power of the API, implement new safe APIs for some of the remaining use cases, etc. EFF are smart people. They know what the actual security benefit is, and choose to instead argue against a caricature.

bambax 5y ago
> Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and modify every single web page you use. That's fucking scary. How is that scary? The browser by definition has unlimited access to read and modify (and monitor) anything I do in it. And I trust gorhill a million times more than any Google employee, past, present or future.
- mappu 5y ago
  The scary part is gorhill is able to sell or hand over the extension - as he has done in the past - to someone with looser morals and/or goals. How much do you think NSO Group would pay for this kind of access? If you ran uBlock Origin, would you like to retire early? Jbk from the VLC project has a lot of stories about turning down 6, 7 figure payments to bundle malware in VLC. Not everyone has the strong morals and unlimited stamina to withstand that. Manifest V3 is created to solve a real problem. I have had browser extensions go rogue on me before (Stylish), and i would like it to not happen again. At the same time, uBlock Origin is a hugely important extension for making the web usable for hundreds of millions of people. A compromise must be found that moves their safety out of a single person's hands.
  - aembleton 5y ago
    It's a good point. Probably best to build it into the browser and let me add my own lists for it to use. That would be a good move for Firefox, they could have it off by default but it would help to reduce the chance of a compromised extension have too much access.
    - mappu 5y ago
      This is almost exactly what Manifest V3 is - it reduces the extension to just be a list manager for a built-in blocker. The only real complaint is that Chrome did not anticipate how large these lists need to be in 2021, and the limits are too low.
      - kbelder 5y ago
        Another problem is that it's static; my understanding is the extension creator needs to make a new list, get it approved by Google, put it in the repository, and get the user to download the update, before a new ad is blocked. Probably requires a restart of the browser, also. Not sure if it removes the ability for the user to on-the-fly add any blocking, but I suspect it does.
        youngtaff 5y ago
        New rules can be added at runtime - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#method-updateDynamicRules https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
  - throwawaycuriou 5y ago
    wait, Stylish went rogue?
    - AnonC 5y ago
      Yes. See https://robertheaton.com/2018/08/16/stylish-is-back-and-you-still-shouldnt-use-it/ https://robertheaton.com/2018/08/16/stylish-is-back-and-you-... Use Stylus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/) instead.
ianbutler 5y ago
I, as an end user want to be able to install whatever dangerous software I want, especially as a power user. I understand the potential consequences and I don't want or need the handrails. Options and freedom are good. This is why browsers need to be split off from for profit organizations to be managed by entities that aren't concerned with the fallout if someone installs malicious software.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I don't think this is a great path, though. Extensions like uBlock Origin should not only be available to people like us, who understand the risk of giving extensions more permissions, and would (hypothetically) have to click through some scary warning dialogs or edit config files to allow it. Your average-Joe user probably needs extensions like this even more than we do in order to remain secure on the web.
  - ianbutler 5y ago
    I agree it shouldn't be available just to people like us. My assumptions here are twofold, one Google doesn't want to deal with fallout from users being harmed in anyway by an extension installed from their ecosystem. It could have real monetary and regulatory impact on them. Two, this benefits their ad business by reducing how thoroughly ads can be blocked. I think browsers should be moved away from for profit organizations to separate non corporate stewardship. With that you remove the overall susceptibility to fallout and can try to give more freedom over the features a browser has or how deeply extensions can integrate, for everyone. You also obviously remove the immediate monetary incentive to restrict freedoms.
vehemenz 5y ago
Since you casually mentioned it—why would Google implement a safe API after removing the "dangerous" API that increased their ad sales? Given their recent history, and all.
readflaggedcomm 5y ago
The browser team could implement the ad blocker itself, instead of relying on third-party code. But even the apparently-best one of those (Brave) has a lousy interface for it.
zentiggr 5y ago
It sounds like you're happy to hand control of your browser away for free. I've been writing code for a few decades, I don't know everything but I don't need someone to decide for me what's too dangerous for me to have access to. If I was truly insane I'd go the Steve Gibson route and write a completely different browser from scratch. I'm aware it would take the rest of my life (or longer) at this point but the engine options are so few, and the ability to avoid the owners' restrictive BS limited enough, that I'd be happy as a clam to see a whole new reboot. I'd jump onto even an alpha of that, just to bump numbers out of hope that ANY group could get together and get out from under the advertising trap.
- politician 5y ago
  There is a lot of room for a new type of browser that doesn’t treat “install base” as a reason not to try.
weq 5y ago
uBlock origin makes the Web safer. End of Story. You cant argue about scammers going after high value targets without mentioned every other popular application out there. I should not be able to write a JS popup that looks like a browser dialog - that would be a pretty good start to improving security of the platform. Instead they remove the APIs that run the ad-blockers. Then give the MAIN APIs used by scammers/ad networks to deanonymise, track and trick you, free access to your system without your agreement. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Its Prohibitionist rhetoric all over again.
unionpivo 5y ago
> If adblockers (and other classes of legit and common extensions) can be migrated to a safe API Sure, but Manifest v3, doesn't have such API. It has a very limited API, that can't do a lot of things uBlockOrigin does. I am not even taking about way too small limit for filtering (30k urls, my current are at 80k+) I mean in manifest v3 you can't hide various banners or fullpage overlays and similar. That to me is one of the more important parts of what uBlockOrigin does for me. So at best I will get half of the functionality (that is if google raises the limit) > EFF are smart people. They know what the actual security benefit is yes. Chrome with manifest v3 + uBlockOrign (assuming we even get it for v3), is less secure than chrome with manifest v2 + uBlockOrign EDIT: Almost forgot. You also cannot block, adds on google search, any more.

by jsnell 5y ago

bambax 5y ago

> Adblockers are probably the most common kind of extension, and are currently granted effectively unlimited access to read and modify every single web page you use. That's fucking scary. How is that scary? The browser by definition has unlimited access to read and modify (and monitor) anything I do in it. And I trust gorhill a million times more than any Google employee, past, present or future.

mappu 5y ago
The scary part is gorhill is able to sell or hand over the extension - as he has done in the past - to someone with looser morals and/or goals. How much do you think NSO Group would pay for this kind of access? If you ran uBlock Origin, would you like to retire early? Jbk from the VLC project has a lot of stories about turning down 6, 7 figure payments to bundle malware in VLC. Not everyone has the strong morals and unlimited stamina to withstand that. Manifest V3 is created to solve a real problem. I have had browser extensions go rogue on me before (Stylish), and i would like it to not happen again. At the same time, uBlock Origin is a hugely important extension for making the web usable for hundreds of millions of people. A compromise must be found that moves their safety out of a single person's hands.
- aembleton 5y ago
  It's a good point. Probably best to build it into the browser and let me add my own lists for it to use. That would be a good move for Firefox, they could have it off by default but it would help to reduce the chance of a compromised extension have too much access.
  - mappu 5y ago
    This is almost exactly what Manifest V3 is - it reduces the extension to just be a list manager for a built-in blocker. The only real complaint is that Chrome did not anticipate how large these lists need to be in 2021, and the limits are too low.
    - kbelder 5y ago
      Another problem is that it's static; my understanding is the extension creator needs to make a new list, get it approved by Google, put it in the repository, and get the user to download the update, before a new ad is blocked. Probably requires a restart of the browser, also. Not sure if it removes the ability for the user to on-the-fly add any blocking, but I suspect it does.
      - youngtaff 5y ago
        New rules can be added at runtime - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/declarativeNetRequest/#method-updateDynamicRules https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/decla...
- throwawaycuriou 5y ago
  wait, Stylish went rogue?
  - AnonC 5y ago
    Yes. See https://robertheaton.com/2018/08/16/stylish-is-back-and-you-still-shouldnt-use-it/ https://robertheaton.com/2018/08/16/stylish-is-back-and-you-... Use Stylus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/) instead.

ianbutler 5y ago

I, as an end user want to be able to install whatever dangerous software I want, especially as a power user. I understand the potential consequences and I don't want or need the handrails. Options and freedom are good. This is why browsers need to be split off from for profit organizations to be managed by entities that aren't concerned with the fallout if someone installs malicious software.

kelnos 5y ago
I don't think this is a great path, though. Extensions like uBlock Origin should not only be available to people like us, who understand the risk of giving extensions more permissions, and would (hypothetically) have to click through some scary warning dialogs or edit config files to allow it. Your average-Joe user probably needs extensions like this even more than we do in order to remain secure on the web.
- ianbutler 5y ago
  I agree it shouldn't be available just to people like us. My assumptions here are twofold, one Google doesn't want to deal with fallout from users being harmed in anyway by an extension installed from their ecosystem. It could have real monetary and regulatory impact on them. Two, this benefits their ad business by reducing how thoroughly ads can be blocked. I think browsers should be moved away from for profit organizations to separate non corporate stewardship. With that you remove the overall susceptibility to fallout and can try to give more freedom over the features a browser has or how deeply extensions can integrate, for everyone. You also obviously remove the immediate monetary incentive to restrict freedoms.

vehemenz 5y ago

Since you casually mentioned it—why would Google implement a safe API after removing the "dangerous" API that increased their ad sales? Given their recent history, and all.

readflaggedcomm 5y ago

The browser team could implement the ad blocker itself, instead of relying on third-party code. But even the apparently-best one of those (Brave) has a lousy interface for it.

zentiggr 5y ago

It sounds like you're happy to hand control of your browser away for free. I've been writing code for a few decades, I don't know everything but I don't need someone to decide for me what's too dangerous for me to have access to. If I was truly insane I'd go the Steve Gibson route and write a completely different browser from scratch. I'm aware it would take the rest of my life (or longer) at this point but the engine options are so few, and the ability to avoid the owners' restrictive BS limited enough, that I'd be happy as a clam to see a whole new reboot. I'd jump onto even an alpha of that, just to bump numbers out of hope that ANY group could get together and get out from under the advertising trap.

politician 5y ago
There is a lot of room for a new type of browser that doesn’t treat “install base” as a reason not to try.

weq 5y ago

uBlock origin makes the Web safer. End of Story. You cant argue about scammers going after high value targets without mentioned every other popular application out there. I should not be able to write a JS popup that looks like a browser dialog - that would be a pretty good start to improving security of the platform. Instead they remove the APIs that run the ad-blockers. Then give the MAIN APIs used by scammers/ad networks to deanonymise, track and trick you, free access to your system without your agreement. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. Its Prohibitionist rhetoric all over again.

unionpivo 5y ago

> If adblockers (and other classes of legit and common extensions) can be migrated to a safe API Sure, but Manifest v3, doesn't have such API. It has a very limited API, that can't do a lot of things uBlockOrigin does. I am not even taking about way too small limit for filtering (30k urls, my current are at 80k+) I mean in manifest v3 you can't hide various banners or fullpage overlays and similar. That to me is one of the more important parts of what uBlockOrigin does for me. So at best I will get half of the functionality (that is if google raises the limit) > EFF are smart people. They know what the actual security benefit is yes. Chrome with manifest v3 + uBlockOrign (assuming we even get it for v3), is less secure than chrome with manifest v2 + uBlockOrign EDIT: Almost forgot. You also cannot block, adds on google search, any more.