Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by dTal on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @04:54AM (#20563177)

>I can't help but cynically interpret the current situation as intentional on Google's part because having the security model be "trust Google to vet the extensions" happens to centralise all the power with them.

Isn't the situation the same with Mozilla? I thought that the reason was that most extensions do, in fact, need to be able to view and modify all your web browsing traffic. For example, my essential addons are uBlock origin, uMatrix, and Tree Tabs. Clearly the first needs to modify web pages, the second needs to intercept traffic, and the last needs the entire list of web pages I have open.

Can you give an example of an extension which requires permissions it shouldn't need?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by andreareina on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @06:50AM (#20563618)

I think there's a lot of room for finer-grained permissions. Why is it that removing (uBlock Origin), adding (Stylus), and modifying (Privacy Badger) elements all require the same permissions?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackabl... by LocalH on Tuesday July 30, 2019 @09:30AM (#20564633)

Because all three of those are, at the core, the very same thing? Whether removing, adding, or modifying, you're changing the contents of the HTML/CSS.

Whether it should be done in a more finely grained way, not sure, but if you have the permissions to modify then by definition you have the permission to remove or add content.

[ Parent | on HN ]