News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by lbatx on Monday July 29, 2019 @11:28PM (#20561905)
> Extensions should be able to have their permissions limited by domain (e.g. to customize YouTube or Reddit) at a minimum.

This seems like a good idea until you realize that the behavior you might want to modify is coming from a different domain loaded by the page and you have no control over how they set that up.

Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by jackfraser on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @02:40AM (#20562579)
So the app should ask for a permission to a reasonable set of domains, and when you're installing it, you should get a clearly laid out permissions / privacy risk management worksheet to look at and agree to.
Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by lbatx on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @11:53PM (#20571592)
Many sites use dozens of domains. Some (probably most) are ads, tracking, and the like. But much of it is stuff needed to run the site. I don't think there is a reasonable set of defaults other than things not on an ad blocker blacklist. And asking the user to approve each domain on a page is too much -- how would they decide, and how would they know which one prevented the site from working properly?
Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by jackfraser on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @12:20AM (#20571692)
What if that's fundamentally a flawed way of building things? Maybe your site should provide all of the assets it needs...
Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by lbatx on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @09:12AM (#20574132)
It's certainly flawed, but providing all of the assets creates a different class of problems. Both approaches have pros and cons, plus the original comment I replied to passed it off as a solution to the problem at hand, which it's not.
Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by Seb-C on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @05:22AM (#20563258)
That would indeed be nice, but currently the domain list is hardcoded in the json file.