3 ms·
Extensions prior to MV3 were notoriously insecure and granted extension developers a very wide attack surface. Assuming that Google only has a sinister reason t
by vovavili 8mo ago
Extensions prior to MV3 were notoriously insecure and granted extension developers a very wide attack surface. Assuming that Google only has a sinister reason to switch to a better standard in an ecosystem riddled with ill-intentioned actors is a bit too cynical.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 8mo agoGoogle will only ever push major updates that are neutral or beneficial to their ad revenue. I do not believe they killed MV3 due to ad blockers, but it's the type of proposal that can survive at Google.
- bornfreddy 8mo agoNo, it's not. They could easily have solved the problems without introducing changes to cripple ad blockers, but they decided their investors need some more cash. Actions speak.
- wavemode 8mo ago> very wide attack surface. Do you have details of specific realistic attacks that were possible under MV2 and now impossible under MV3?
- vovavili 8mo agoA very quick Google search could have done the trick for you - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/improve-security https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
- wavemode 8mo agoThat page contains a list of things you aren't allowed to do in MV3 anymore. There's no explanation of attacks being prevented. In what specific ways are you safer when installing a malicious MV3 extension compared to installing a malicious MV2 extension?