3 ms·
If you actually read the linked bug report (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823) they talk
by cycomanic 3y ago
If you actually read the linked bug report (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823) they talk about making the list user configurable. I actually agree that having a per extension list for disabling on some websites would be nice (some websites break with extensions, e.g. I use tridactyl for Vim like Navigation, but if I work on e.g. Overleaf things get into the way of each other and so I turn it off via mode ignore)
- lapcat 3y ago> If you actually read the linked bug report (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1745823) I did. > they talk about making the list user configurable. As I said, "I have no problem with letting the user control the domains that an extension can access". Indeed, Safari already has this feature. Funny how Mozilla implemented the remote kill switch before they implemented the user control, though. Also, AFAIK neither Safari nor Chrome has a remote domain list kill switch, so it's unclear what "security" problem it's supposed to solve.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoAFAIK, Safari and Chrome extensions are far less powerful than Firefox extensions, so it makes sense that they would be less worried about malicious ones.
- lapcat 3y agoHow are Chrome extensions less powerful than Firefox extensions? Also, Safari extensions are perfectly capable of reading and stealing your password on banking websites, which is what everyone seems to be concerned about. In fact, there's a warning about that in the Safari extensions user interface: "Can read sensitive information from webpages, including passwords, phone numbers, and credit cards."