6 ms·

And how did Firefox solved it? I only found it mentioning that Firefox will continue to support V2, but that's not a solution.

johnny22 4y ago
they're supporting manifest v3 fully, but not removing the thing that breaks the better content filtering.
dmix 4y ago
It's explained here https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi... And here https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-migration-by-implementing-new-features-today/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-mi... Firefox kept support for Event Pages which get direct access to DOM and WebAPIs in the background as well as Web Requests, both of which are not available via Chrome's use of service workers/restricted request API > “One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement. > Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.” I hope FF gets service workers going soon, I haven't followed development closely so I'm not sure what's holding them back besides not wanting to replace Event Pages entirely with it [1]. I tried to build a (non-complicated) extension recently and the service worker API seemed cleaner and modern. 1 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72
- tagawa 4y ago
  > I hope FF gets service workers going soon As of October 2022, that’s “not planned”: https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext/issues/2532 https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext/issues/2532
  - dmix 4y ago
    Yeah seems like they want to stick with one approach rather than supporting both EventPages and service workers at once.
whstl 4y ago
From the blog post linked in the article: > While other browser vendors introduced declarativeNetRequest (DNR) in favor of blocking Web Request in MV3, Firefox MV3 continues to support blocking Web Request and will support a compatible version of DNR in the future. We believe blocking Web Request is more flexible than DNR, thus allowing for more creative use cases in content blockers and other privacy and security extensions. However, DNR also has important performance and compatibility characteristics we want to support. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/11/17/manifest-v3-signing-available-november-21-on-firefox-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/11/17/manifest-v3-signi... So, in a nutshell, they won't deprecate an existing working API, like Google did. But they will additionally support the new API.
- gpvos 4y ago
  That's not in the featured article, so why isn't a more informative article linked instead?
  - whstl 4y ago
    It was a blogpost linked in the article. My wording wasn't correct. I edited it to clarify. As for your question, that's a legitimate request. Maybe dang can change the link?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  The current API is a security hole. But that's fine. "It's incumbent on end-users to know what they're installing" is a fine position for Mozilla to take.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I can't tell if you're being sincere or sarcastic. Allowing users to install whatever they want at their own risk is exactly what people complaining about walled gardens not allowing them to do. Attempting to protect people that don't know what they are doing from known security holes is what one of the things walled gardens claim as a feature. Which direction are taking it?
MC68328 4y ago
> Firefox will continue to support V2, but that's not a solution That is the solution, it's just not the solution we're allowed to have.

johnny22 4y ago

they're supporting manifest v3 fully, but not removing the thing that breaks the better content filtering.

dmix 4y ago

It's explained here https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi... And here https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-migration-by-implementing-new-features-today/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/10/31/begin-your-mv3-mi... Firefox kept support for Event Pages which get direct access to DOM and WebAPIs in the background as well as Web Requests, both of which are not available via Chrome's use of service workers/restricted request API > “One of the most controversial changes of Chrome’s MV3 approach is the removal of blocking WebRequest, which provides a level of power and flexibility that is critical to enabling advanced privacy and content blocking features. Unfortunately, that power has also been used to harm users in a variety of ways Chrome’s solution in MV3 was to define a more narrowly scoped API (declarativeNetRequest) as a replacement. However, this will limit the capabilities of certain types of privacy extensions without adequate replacement. > Mozilla will maintain support for blocking WebRequest in MV3. To maximize compatibility with other browsers, we will also ship support for declarativeNetRequest. We will continue to work with content blockers and other key consumers of this API to identify current and future alternatives where appropriate. Content blocking is one of the most important use cases for extensions, and we are committed to ensuring that Firefox users have access to the best privacy tools available.” I hope FF gets service workers going soon, I haven't followed development closely so I'm not sure what's holding them back besides not wanting to replace Event Pages entirely with it [1]. I tried to build a (non-complicated) extension recently and the service worker API seemed cleaner and modern. 1 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72 https://github.com/w3c/webextensions/issues/72

tagawa 4y ago
> I hope FF gets service workers going soon As of October 2022, that’s “not planned”: https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext/issues/2532 https://github.com/mozilla/web-ext/issues/2532
- dmix 4y ago
  Yeah seems like they want to stick with one approach rather than supporting both EventPages and service workers at once.

whstl 4y ago

From the blog post linked in the article: > While other browser vendors introduced declarativeNetRequest (DNR) in favor of blocking Web Request in MV3, Firefox MV3 continues to support blocking Web Request and will support a compatible version of DNR in the future. We believe blocking Web Request is more flexible than DNR, thus allowing for more creative use cases in content blockers and other privacy and security extensions. However, DNR also has important performance and compatibility characteristics we want to support. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/11/17/manifest-v3-signing-available-november-21-on-firefox-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/11/17/manifest-v3-signi... So, in a nutshell, they won't deprecate an existing working API, like Google did. But they will additionally support the new API.

gpvos 4y ago
That's not in the featured article, so why isn't a more informative article linked instead?
- whstl 4y ago
  It was a blogpost linked in the article. My wording wasn't correct. I edited it to clarify. As for your question, that's a legitimate request. Maybe dang can change the link?
shadowgovt 4y ago
The current API is a security hole. But that's fine. "It's incumbent on end-users to know what they're installing" is a fine position for Mozilla to take.
- dylan604 4y ago
  I can't tell if you're being sincere or sarcastic. Allowing users to install whatever they want at their own risk is exactly what people complaining about walled gardens not allowing them to do. Attempting to protect people that don't know what they are doing from known security holes is what one of the things walled gardens claim as a feature. Which direction are taking it?

MC68328 4y ago

> Firefox will continue to support V2, but that's not a solution That is the solution, it's just not the solution we're allowed to have.