4 ms·

Thanks for the tip. That works well enough for me, and it saves having another browser extension to configure!

• kelnos 5y ago
  > it saves having another browser extension to configure! Not just that, it saves having another browser extension to trust. A large number of the sites I get to are through search results. A malicious extension that has access to modify search results could do a lot of damage. Hell, I know people who get to their bank and other sensitive sites by typing the name of the institution into Google, rather than typing the URL. Being able to modify search results would be great for phishing.
  • sodality2 5y ago
    This is why I always do banking/TDAM in Firefox safe mode. I'd rather be tracked (or even hacked by some malicious script through the bank's fault) by my bank, than hacked by an extension I installed, because I wouldn't have much liability in the former but I would in the prior.
    • whatshisface 5y ago
      You think they're going to accept liability just because it's their fault? In order to get that far they'd have to investigate and then find themselves at fault.
      • jjeaff 5y ago
        Of all the bad things banks do, not accepting liability for theft or loss of funds doesn't seem like a very common one. I've never had trouble with any bank reversing fraudulent transactions or withdrawals.
• krono 5y ago
  You can even block based on the result's text, see my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29550393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29550393 One less extension equals one less security/privacy liability too!