4 ms·
Sandbox alone isn't sufficient because when loading a malicious extension into a session you might be exposing your environment variables to it. You also need e
by gchamonlive 5mo ago
Sandbox alone isn't sufficient because when loading a malicious extension into a session you might be exposing your environment variables to it. You also need explicit permissions, so that only relevant extensions can access secrets like this.
And even if this exists, and you are sandboxed, with all guardrails and such, if you trust an extension that later gets compromised, you'd get the same sadness. It's the problems with trusting trust all over again...
Maybe sandboxing, plus freezing updates for at least a week, then on each update reviewing the permissions for each extension, then reviewing the extension itself for compromises. Something that should be done not by the user but by the supply chain itself.
- insanitybit 5mo agoSufficient for what? It's sufficient for preventing an extension from accessing tokens on my filesystem, from connecting to arbitrary networks, stealing my browser session cookies, etc. It's sufficient for a fucking lot. This is how browsers have been doing things for 20 years, it's ridiculous that a company worth billions isn't doing it.
- gchamonlive 5mo agoDon't know what you are talking about, browser extensions implement granular permissions on top of sandboxing too. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/permissions-list https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/permi... https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/manage-optional-permissions-extensions https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/manage-optional-permiss...
- insanitybit 5mo agoPerhaps I was unclear. I am suggesting exactly that browsers do this correctly and that vscode should be following that old, tried and true model.