4 ms·
Typically the burden of proof would be on the one making the assertion that something is malicious, but I see mere accusations and paranoia is good enough for s
by WindowsDev 1y ago
Typically the burden of proof would be on the one making the assertion that something is malicious, but I see mere accusations and paranoia is good enough for some people even with the code right in front of them. Two unused string constants doesn't mean much.
- Etheryte 1y agoIt very much does when someone else already pointed out that the same code has previously been show to include malware.
- WindowsDev 1y ago>that the same code has previously been show to include malware. What was pointed out was, that the extension got compromised at our thereafter December 2024. The version I base this on was sourced from the Web Store August 2024 when it was a legit Chrome and Firefox extension with active 300,000+ users and existed since since 2020. Just because an extension gets compromised you think that retroactively means the old versions are unsafe too and now the code is haunted?