4 ms·
Wouldn't a better way to deal with extension takeovers B to just turn off the extension instead of blocking the extension from certain websites? Especially sinc
by logicprog 3y ago
Wouldn't a better way to deal with extension takeovers B to just turn off the extension instead of blocking the extension from certain websites? Especially since, as the author points out, any such quarantine list of domains is of necessity going to be incomplete?
- zargon 3y agoIt blocks *all* (non-monitored) extensions from running on *some* websites. What it should do is block *specific* extensions from running on *all* sites. The security justification doesn't align with what they actually did.
- kemayo 3y agoI think the idea would be that it's easier to list common targets than to play after-the-fact whack-a-mole with malicious extensions. The former makes it less lucrative to sneak your malicious code into an extension, because you don't get that window of being able to harvest data before it's noticed.
- logicprog 3y agoExactly what I was getting at yeah, well said
- mook 3y agoThey already have (separate) capability to force uninstall specific extensions, so there isn't much point to blocking specific extensions from all sites. My charitable guess for this one is block things like Honey (which essentially slurps your browsing history in return for affiliate discounts) from things like banking websites. But I'll disable it for now and see what the UI is later.