3 ms·

The problem is with users. They ignore the scary "access to all websites" dialogs and install extensions. Sites like pinterest have extensions that request the

by kzahel 13y ago

The problem is with users. They ignore the scary "access to all websites" dialogs and install extensions. Sites like pinterest have extensions that request these permissions, when they don't even need them. There's a way to have the extension only have access to the site you're on when you CLICK somewhere in your toolbar. There are fine grained permissions and optional permissions to specific hosts and ports and URL patterns. It's all very well thought out. The problem is with users. For example, I have an extension that enables autocomplete on all web pages: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/autocomplete-on/gdhbgagnmhdafendedikgjimegoipbnk https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/autocomplete-on/gd..., and it has access to all data on all websites. People install it every day, I don't know why. I would never install or trust anybody else with such an extension. I have to manually clone any extension I like and upload it to the chrome web store; that way I know it's not going to auto update and do nefarious things.

hayfield 13y ago
Depending on how the extension developer feels future development may pan out, requesting access to all websites is the only reasonable way to do it. With how the update system works[1], when requesting new permissions the extension is disabled until manually reenabled. If there's even a slight possibility you may want to request access to additional sites in the future, you basically have to request "all websites" to prevent this from happening. Since Chrome 16 there have been optional permissions around (so you only request permissions when they're needed, preventing the extension from auto-disabling), although that introduces additional overhead beyond simply requesting everything in the manifest file. The extension update system should probably work more along the lines of that in Android - it auto-updates if the new version needs no additional permissions, but requires user input when new permissions are required. The current[1] state of auto-disable-on-update isn't ideal from either a developer or user position. [1] as of about a year ago when I last tested this
- kzahel 13y ago
  You are right that adding new permissions will disable the extension until it is re-enabled. But android has a very similar behavior. Still, I feel that using optional permissions and pointing out to the user why they would want enable the new permissions is the best option. Yes, it's more work for the developer. I just released an extension to help identify high risk installed extensions: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-guard/edcajbacgdcdeecojhlllbgingbjfbmk https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-guard/edca...
ufmace 13y ago
Looks like what we really need to do is to remove those universal permissions entirely, then. Say after some particular date, no new extensions or updates to existing ones are allowed unless they remove the universal permissions and switch to the site-specific ones. Of course, then you need a solid extension update system where there's some way to alert the user of when an extension needs new permissions, and have them see and authorize them before the update goes active. Hopefully something like the way that Chome updates work now - instead of throwing a modal dialog at the user at some random time, have a tick or light in the UI somewhere that they need to do something.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by kzahel 13y ago

hayfield 13y ago

Depending on how the extension developer feels future development may pan out, requesting access to all websites is the only reasonable way to do it. With how the update system works[1], when requesting new permissions the extension is disabled until manually reenabled. If there's even a slight possibility you may want to request access to additional sites in the future, you basically have to request "all websites" to prevent this from happening. Since Chrome 16 there have been optional permissions around (so you only request permissions when they're needed, preventing the extension from auto-disabling), although that introduces additional overhead beyond simply requesting everything in the manifest file. The extension update system should probably work more along the lines of that in Android - it auto-updates if the new version needs no additional permissions, but requires user input when new permissions are required. The current[1] state of auto-disable-on-update isn't ideal from either a developer or user position. [1] as of about a year ago when I last tested this

kzahel 13y ago
You are right that adding new permissions will disable the extension until it is re-enabled. But android has a very similar behavior. Still, I feel that using optional permissions and pointing out to the user why they would want enable the new permissions is the best option. Yes, it's more work for the developer. I just released an extension to help identify high risk installed extensions: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-guard/edcajbacgdcdeecojhlllbgingbjfbmk https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/privacy-guard/edca...

ufmace 13y ago

Looks like what we really need to do is to remove those universal permissions entirely, then. Say after some particular date, no new extensions or updates to existing ones are allowed unless they remove the universal permissions and switch to the site-specific ones. Of course, then you need a solid extension update system where there's some way to alert the user of when an extension needs new permissions, and have them see and authorize them before the update goes active. Hopefully something like the way that Chome updates work now - instead of throwing a modal dialog at the user at some random time, have a tick or light in the UI somewhere that they need to do something.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]