3 ms·

> (a) we obviously considered this in the first version of extensions and did not allow permissions "below" the fold Irrelevant. > (b) Chrome's extension mod

> (a) we obviously considered this in the first version of extensions and did not allow permissions "below" the fold Irrelevant. > (b) Chrome's extension model dramatically improved on the previous state of the art which was Firefox's "every extension can do everything, extensions can't be uninstalled completely, and there's no review" Irrelevant. > (c) the install dialog is just one part in a bigger system which includes the review process. "Our MFA system is broken and will accept wrong input, but that doesn't matter because you without the correct password you won't get in." Would that fly? > I also encourage readers to remember that generally speaking, you all _want_ extensions. When Chrome didn't have them, they were the top feature request in the bug tracker. What are you trying to say? That because users want it then overlooking security issues is excusable? > If you don't solve user needs, users solve them themselves with solutions that are even worse (ie native code). That falls under the realm of 'their fault.' This problem does not. > Please spare a bit of empathy for the "chain of humans" that have had it. OK, I feel bad for the poor Google worker with the thankless job and a six figure salary. Now fix it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MichaelZuo 4y ago
This is a needlessly combative reply. Your interlocutor is not sitting at the interrogation table.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  I admit it is a bit combative, but his response took absolutely zero responsibility and expressed zero concern for what is in my mind a huge and inexcusable security oversight. Countering an acting apologist for a de facto monopolist corporation is also needed, or else we end up with complacency and rot.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Because there’s nothing to be concerned about. Author irresponsibly incited a bunch of FUD. End of story.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - kccqzy 4y ago
    Frankly your tone made yourself sound like an entitled armchair expert, whereas the paragraphs you have labeled as "irrelevant" sound extremely relevant. Why don't you use a few words to explain why you think that paragraph is irrelevant? Even though he didn't take responsibility I walk away convinced that he's doing a good enough job.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > Frankly your tone made yourself sound like an entitled armchair expert Well, the OP's tone was flippant, and I thought it was dismissive. Who cares how thankless the job is -- it is your job. Stop blaming it on the users for wanting things and fix the problem and stop making excuses and acting put out. > whereas the paragraphs you have labeled as "irrelevant" sound extremely relevant. Why don't you use a few words to explain why you think that paragraph is irrelevant? It is irrelevant because the issue exists now. Who cares what they accounted for 8 years ago, and who cares what their competitor does? P1: My lock opens with any key. It should only open with my key. P2: But the competitor's lock opens without a key! P1: I don't care? Fix it. > Even though he didn't take responsibility I walk away convinced that he's doing a good enough job. You should raise your standards.
      - aboodman 4y ago
        To clarify: 1. I agree the bug should be fixed. 2. I don't work on Chrome anymore and have not for 8 years. I should have made that more clear. 3. I was responding to the claim: 'the entire chain of people working on this has been asleep at the wheel'. OP was assuming this bug has existed forever. I know for a fact it hasn't, because I remember caring about getting this right and implementing custom UI for it. I also listed some other things we improved over status quo at the time, which refute this claim. 4. Based on my knowledge of how this all used to work, it's not as big an issue as the original article and several people in this thread are making it seem, because the review process is really the primary safety check in the system. It needs to be because, as many have noted, most users don't read the dialog. Extensions are required to have a single purpose and extraneous permissions aren't allowed. And if an extension with a large number of permissions was approved, extensions (and updates) are reviewed both with automated and manual processes, and it would be difficult to get a malicious extension through the process or to get large numbers of users on it. I still agree the bug should be fixed. We cared a lot about getting this UI right when we originally implemented it, and it's unfortunate that it regressed.
tzs 4y ago
>> (a) we obviously considered this in the first version of extensions and did not allow permissions "below" the fold > Irrelevant No, it is directly relevant. He is responding to someone who said that this problem with the permissions UI goes all the way back to the everyone who was involved from the very beginning. He is one of those people who were involved at the beginning and is pointing out that they did not have that problem back then.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MichaelZuo 4y ago

This is a needlessly combative reply. Your interlocutor is not sitting at the interrogation table.

Eisenstein 4y ago
I admit it is a bit combative, but his response took absolutely zero responsibility and expressed zero concern for what is in my mind a huge and inexcusable security oversight. Countering an acting apologist for a de facto monopolist corporation is also needed, or else we end up with complacency and rot.
- dcow 4y ago
  Because there’s nothing to be concerned about. Author irresponsibly incited a bunch of FUD. End of story.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- kccqzy 4y ago
  Frankly your tone made yourself sound like an entitled armchair expert, whereas the paragraphs you have labeled as "irrelevant" sound extremely relevant. Why don't you use a few words to explain why you think that paragraph is irrelevant? Even though he didn't take responsibility I walk away convinced that he's doing a good enough job.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > Frankly your tone made yourself sound like an entitled armchair expert Well, the OP's tone was flippant, and I thought it was dismissive. Who cares how thankless the job is -- it is your job. Stop blaming it on the users for wanting things and fix the problem and stop making excuses and acting put out. > whereas the paragraphs you have labeled as "irrelevant" sound extremely relevant. Why don't you use a few words to explain why you think that paragraph is irrelevant? It is irrelevant because the issue exists now. Who cares what they accounted for 8 years ago, and who cares what their competitor does? P1: My lock opens with any key. It should only open with my key. P2: But the competitor's lock opens without a key! P1: I don't care? Fix it. > Even though he didn't take responsibility I walk away convinced that he's doing a good enough job. You should raise your standards.
    - aboodman 4y ago
      To clarify: 1. I agree the bug should be fixed. 2. I don't work on Chrome anymore and have not for 8 years. I should have made that more clear. 3. I was responding to the claim: 'the entire chain of people working on this has been asleep at the wheel'. OP was assuming this bug has existed forever. I know for a fact it hasn't, because I remember caring about getting this right and implementing custom UI for it. I also listed some other things we improved over status quo at the time, which refute this claim. 4. Based on my knowledge of how this all used to work, it's not as big an issue as the original article and several people in this thread are making it seem, because the review process is really the primary safety check in the system. It needs to be because, as many have noted, most users don't read the dialog. Extensions are required to have a single purpose and extraneous permissions aren't allowed. And if an extension with a large number of permissions was approved, extensions (and updates) are reviewed both with automated and manual processes, and it would be difficult to get a malicious extension through the process or to get large numbers of users on it. I still agree the bug should be fixed. We cared a lot about getting this UI right when we originally implemented it, and it's unfortunate that it regressed.

tzs 4y ago

>> (a) we obviously considered this in the first version of extensions and did not allow permissions "below" the fold > Irrelevant No, it is directly relevant. He is responding to someone who said that this problem with the permissions UI goes all the way back to the everyone who was involved from the very beginning. He is one of those people who were involved at the beginning and is pointing out that they did not have that problem back then.