3 ms·

> Because Google has more resources to secure their browser They've kneecapped ad-blockers, when ad networks are perhaps one of the biggest causes of malware i

• flir 4mo ago
  My org (or rather, the org they pay to run their IT) blocked browser plugins with a security justification. I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone. When you outsource IT, there are many, many misaligned incentives.
  • remus 4mo ago
    > I find this incredibly amusing, and at a different point in my life I'd already be gone. How so? Bad actors buying existing extensions with large user bases then publishing a new version which does bad stuff is a pretty common pattern. It certainy seems like a reasonable concern for a corp IT department.
    • nazgul17 4mo ago
      Not GP, but I think the point was that no extensions => no ad blockers => major malware vehicle unlockable, short of disabling JS
      • flir 4mo ago
        Bingo. I figure they had a switch they could toggle and they thought no further about the tradeoffs. Because their primary concern is their own liability, not what's best for the org their contract is with.
    • michaelt 4mo ago
      99% of security experts I know use ad blockers. When there are unpatched browser vulnerabilities, attackers will use ad networks to inject attack code into reputable-but-ad-laden websites. And even when there aren't unpatched vulnerabilities out there, many ad networks will happily accept scam ads, ads that trick people into downloading malware, fake download buttons and suchlike.
      • radley 4mo ago
        > 99% of security experts I know use ad blockers. But if they all use Chrome, wouldn't those be really weak ad blockers?
        • xnx 4mo ago
          This is a common myth. I've used uBlock Origin Lite for months (a year?) and still see zero ads. I'm extremely intolerant to ads, so I would leave Chrome if ad blocking stopped working.
          • michaelmrose 3mo ago
            Adblocking is an arms race. Google is handicapping adblocking progressively the fact that it doesn't take one day to achieve absolutely doesn't make it a myth. Adblocking is technically worse and the more locked down our environments are the easier it will be to kill or drastically reduce it. If everyone had the same attitude this would probably already be the case.
      • froggit 3mo ago
        > 99% of security experts I know use ad blockers. 100% of security experts I know find ads annoying and know ad blockers reduce how many they see.
    • deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
  • radley 4mo ago
    > My org (or rather, the org they pay to run their IT) blocked browser plugins with a security justification. Same here, but only on Chrome. Firefox works fine.
  • LtWorf 4mo ago
    Have they blocked vscode? I think any organisation that lets people use vscode, might just as well people do whatever they want.
    • flir 4mo ago
      Nope :)
• DANmode 4mo ago
  They didn’t take a decade plus to implement per-domain process isolation, for starters…
  • DANmode 4mo ago
    You can downvote the truth, but can’t reply to it. Typical modern Mozilla fans, really.
    • youarenaive343 3mo ago
      Typical Hacker News posters.
• FrinkleFrankle 4mo ago
  Brave has ad-blocking built in and policies can be used to disable any unwanted features. With Chrome going user-hostile, it's a pretty great option.
• xnx 4mo ago
  Extensions are a much greater security risk than ads.