6 ms·
From the blog post linked in the article: > While other browser vendors introduced declarativeNetRequest (DNR) in favor of blocking Web Request in MV3, Firefox
by 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 agoThat's not in the featured article, so why isn't a more informative article linked instead?
- whstl 4y agoIt 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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?
- Retric 4y agoThat’s hardly the only option. Walled guardians that only protect against counterfeits or viruses is a perfectly useful feature even if they allow anyone on the platform.
- DelightOne 4y agoExcept that not being able to block all ads potentially containing viruses makes THAT walled garden unsafe by design.
- Retric 4y agoIn what way would the walled garden I described not be able to block adds?
- DelightOne 4y agoWhen that walled garden relies on 3rd-party tools and does not give them enough power to do their job well.
- Retric 4y agoYou are clearly assuming things that have nothing to do with what I described. The owner of a walled garden doesn’t need to depend on 3rd parties for anything they can build whatever tools they want in house.
- DelightOne 4y agoRight, I am talking about Chrome. You seem to be talking about something else.
- Retric 4y agoIf you’re going to ignore what people say there’s little point in hitting that reply button.
- Miraste 4y agoBeing forced to see and potentially click on ads is a security hole. I trust uBlock and gorhill more than I trust Google.
- macNchz 4y agoThis is what prompted me to start blocking ads many years ago…there’s simply too much malicious advertising out there and the corporations involved have the wrong incentives to deal with it properly. As long as ad networks allow arbitrary code to run, and content designed to trick users, I prefer to centralize on a single source of potential risk (the extension developer) rather than the moving target of malicious ads from myriad sources. A recent example readily avoided by not allowing the ad to run in the first place: https://www.securityweek.com/webkit-zero-day-vulnerability-exploited-malvertising-operation/ https://www.securityweek.com/webkit-zero-day-vulnerability-e...
- hgsgm 4y ago*"uBlock Origin" . "uBlock" stole the new from gorhill.
- kuschku 4y agoAll chrome did was prevent extensions from blocking requests. They can still see all requests and do with them what they want, just read-only. How does that solve the security issue you mentioned?
- charcircuit 4y ago[flagged]
- blibble 4y agoindeed, with Google being a well known champion of privacy
- taneq 4y agoGoogle takes your privacy very seriously. Where ‘privacy’ is defined as ‘giving you control over who Google shared your data with’, of course.
- charcircuit 4y ago[flagged]
- hgsgm 4y agoExcept that Google exempts itself from those privacy controls, if you use a Google product. Users "understand" that Google records most everything they do on the web, for advertising purposes.
- charcircuit 4y ago>Except that Google exempts itself from those privacy controls, if you use a Google product. No it doesn't. Google takes privacy issues very seriously just like security issues. You can disable Google storing your web activity in your account's privacy settings here. https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity
- sebzim4500 4y agoAm I missing something? It's my understanding that chromium based browsers also allow listening to requests same as before, they merely aren't allowed to block them anymore.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThe set of responses to a request is also constrained to a non-Turing-complete declarative language.
- hgsgm 4y agoTuring-complete and declarative are not the important parts. Ability to read content and perform side effects matter.
- dang 4y agoWe've switched the URL to that post now - more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34851026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34851026. Thanks! Edit: nope, reverted. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34851017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34851017.