I really wish browsers would change their security model for extensions :\

"all or nothing" is ridiculous as the only option - let me revoke access or restrict it to specific sites. I may not care if X has access to site Y, but giving it access to Z means giving it the keys to my life so hell no. I don't even want to use it on Z.

> "all or nothing" is ridiculous as the only option - let me revoke access or restrict it to specific sites.

Thank you. I've been waiting for Firefox to add this feature for almost 2 years. For a privacy focused browser, this should be a must have, top priority.

I think they have already? In the old days, you just click once to install a mouse gesture addon.

Now you have to dig into the settings. And give it permission before it could work. At first I found that annoying. But upon reflection. I guess it's a necessary evil.

Edit: I misread the parent comment.

Chrome lets you limit access to a list of specified websites. Right click the extension icon, click manage extension, and find the option there.

I wish there was a way to exclude some websites instead! I want most of the extensions like ad/script/etc blockers to run everywhere, except say GMail.

Excellent, I hadn't noticed that one yet. Yeah, that's a good start.

I only discovered it because I was going to add a similar feature to my Chrome extension, and I was researching to see how others tend to implement it. I was glad to see that Chrome offers the feature natively, and surprised to see that Firefox didn’t.

You can add domains to protected sites. No addons will work there.

So if you want no extension to be able to read gmail,

Add mail.google.com or google.com to

extensions.webextensions.RestrictedDomains in about:config

It's fairly new (maybe 1-2 years old, I forget), that's probably why you didn't notice it.

Agreed. Like with Pocket's Chrome extension permission model[1] that has a "read everything on all websites", when really it only needs brief access to the URL when I want to save something.

I tried changing the "Site access" setting to "On click" -- but then the extension started acting funny or not working in some cases.

Chrome has added a more limited "activeTab" permission[2], but even that might be too much since it grants control to the tab and continues to allow permission on the same origin.

Like the GP said, even if the extension developer isn't trying to exfiltrate data, they should do more to protect users from a compromise of their extension, and browsers should give them the models to do so.

IMO, good security models can be a foundation forward to better overall security compared to desktop apps since it seems that browsers are becoming an OS of their own.

1: https://help.getpocket.com/article/912-what-permissions-does...

2: https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/activeTab

In Firefox you can choose for every extension if it is allowed to work in private mode.

But this ties me to use private mode everytime I visit an important site. This is not what I want.

You can add domains to protected sites. No addons will work there.

So if you want no extension to be able to read gmail,

Add mail.google.com or google.com to

extensions.webextensions.RestrictedDomains in about:config

You could fork the extension and modify it for your own usage

while true, you can say this about anything which doesn't have any permissions system too. why worry about end-user security, they can just fork and modify.

which means, effectively, that it becomes a 0.001% or worse event. arguably the whole point of privacy-focused (or even -aware) software is to increase that beyond "fork and modify"'s ratio, as far as possible, because it doesn't work in practice for the vast majority of the globe.

Yes, this - absolutely. Every extension you install is another potential risk/attack vector. Consider the sources carefully and run the least number of extensions possible. Each one potentially has control of your browser, so choose accordingly.

Lately I ended up running much fewer extensions than I used to, and actually looking at their source first.

I think the only closed-source extension I run is lastpass, and I'm evaluating open-source alternatives.

How do people who cannot read code even cope, I don't know.

+1 for bitwarden. Of all the things not to trust closed source software with, passwords are the main one

If there were ever a post to drive me away from a product, this'd be it. Good to know that I should stay well away from KeepassXC, if this is what its defenders sound like.

It's really disappointing to see what's a now flagged post and push-back to what was obviously a flagrant comment. For a more level-headed opinion on KeepassXC, it's decently polished and easy to use. It's also open-source and cross-platform. I like it and came from the original Keepass. I didn't have any specific issues with the first besides wanting to try something new. I haven't noticed any major issues with KeepassXC myself but open to hearing others' experiences.

Comment was flagged so I have no idea what they said, but I use KeePassXC and I'm happy with it. Regular KeePass is good too, but I use XC because it's cross-platform.

If you turn on showdead in your user profile settings you can see flagged comments. I find it helps with context in situations like this, but certain types of posts do attract a lot of racist/sexist garbage that you normally cant see so be forewarned.

Can you comment on why you think Bitwarden is a „POS“ and what KeepassXC does better?

>KeepassXC is fortunately the only sane password-manager

What's wrong with Keepass?

I signed up for LastPass a couple of weeks ago, and they started sending me spammy emails every single day. I went into account settings and disabled the emails, and they kept coming. I opened a support thread on their forum, linking many other similar threads going back several years, and saying that they have to fix this under GDPR... Silence.

I deleted my account and switched to BitDefender. Still getting the LastPass emails though, whenever I check my spam folder.

Also, LastPass slowed my Android phone a lot. BitDefender doesn't seem to do that.

In short, my recommendation is: stay the hell away from LastPass. They can't even handle an email system, I don't trust them at all to handle my passwords.

> Also, LastPass slowed my Android phone a lot.

Their Windows application was also painfully slow.

I paid them for years but I no longer trust them, it seems to me they are incompetent as an organization even if the people who work there might or might not be smart.

You meant to say bitwarden? Afaik Bitdefender Is an Antivirus.

Oops, yes. Thanks.

Can you list those open source extensions you run? I think this could help a lot to cope ..

I can't count the time I have heard good things about an extension, went to the chrome store page and ... "asks to read your data on all websites".

Hard pass.

I can't prevent the apps/OSes I use from gathering data about me, but that's at least one vector (although sadly a small one) I can do something about.

Isn't this true, to some degree, with all software distribution channels? Weren't CCleaner and FileZilla hacked to distribute malware alongside the main payload?

Unvalidated auto-update really is an anti-pattern. Giving arbitrary third parties the power to install and run software on your system in perpetuity is a massive attack vector. Most software doesn't represent a large active and ongoing attack surface that auto-updates would be a net positive.

Just yesterday I ran into an invisible layer right here on HN when replying with a comment that opened a new page when I tried to click on something.

I disabled all extensions that I don't commonly use and am watching for now, but I have no idea how to actually tell which one did it (many of them were recently updated due to a Chrome change on August 6th or something).