5 ms·

It's a composition of two features, both of which are useful on their own. Removing this "feature" requires removing at least one of those sub-features, in this

It's a composition of two features, both of which are useful on their own. Removing this "feature" requires removing at least one of those sub-features, in this case eval. We could alternatively allow eval to be used, but ban it from being used on code downloaded from the internet. This would require vetting the code, rather than a fully automated check. The goal of such a removal is, supposedly, to enable manual vetting to be more effective. However, the only reason to prefer an outright removal over a conditional ban is that it obviates the need for manual review. Do you see the contradiction?

shadowgovt 3y ago
> This would require vetting the code, rather than a fully automated check. Then it's a non-starter for the manifest format supported by the chrome web store. Because Google's goal is to automate as much as possible.
- bensecure 3y ago
  Naturally. Thus, it doesn't much matter whether code is shipped in the extension package, or downloaded off the internet, since nobody will be checking what it does regardless.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Of course it matters. One of them allows looping in data from arbitrary external sources, and the other one (Mv3) has a permissions model that disallows that. It's a completely different risk domain. Don't forget, the mere act of requesting data from an external uncontrolled third-party source is leaking user information. Under Mv3, those leaks are fully documented.