Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

palant.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#31

Post by robryk »

kettl2 wrote: post #22

Having spent some time looking at the code of popular Chrome extensions recently I was left really shaken about whats happening under the hood. Google's position seems to be, if a website can track you and monitor your behavior when you are on the page, then an extension should be able to do so too. But the extensions have a whole lot more capability. They can look at my history, bookmarks, all the fucking tabs I hav…

> At install time there is no reason Google can't say this extension uses Google Analytics to track where you are clicking etc and what data and how much data is being sent off everyday to god knows who.

Let's say Google started to do this in a way that causes people not to want to use such extensions. Why do you think extension authors would stop using analytics as opposed to use some other analytics provider (that is on average more fishy security-wise)?

Disclaimer: I work at Google, but not on anything Chrome-related.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#32

Post by deno »

robryk wrote: post #28
deno wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could, in theory, filter those sort of things. Adding, or modifying any DOM node, to the effect that it includes third-party resources could be denied. If you also deny adding inline blocks and enforce any injected javascript to run in strict CSP mode it could potentially work.

The original page's JS might depend on the DOM tree of the page. Thus a change that doesn't obviously cause any information to be emitted to third parties can cause that JS to do that (e.g. if the JS uses attributed of DOM tree nodes as URLs of data sources or data sinks).

That’s valid. I still feel it would eliminate at least most of the abuse, like injecting ads though. Unless there’s something very widely deployed (say jQuery etc.) that’s vulnerable.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#33

Post by J_Darnley »

Manishearth wrote: post #25
J_Darnley wrote: post #24

Why? They shouldn't be copying chrome's extensions in the first place.

More like building a much more powerful, standardized, extensions API that is backwards compatible with chrome extensions (which offer relatively limited tools) It isn't copying, all the browsers want a standardized extensions system and they have agreed on using Chrome as a starting point.

More powerful? I though chrome's API was stupidly limited which is why firefox had better extensions (all of which they want to throw out).

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#34

Post by cLeEOGPw »

> Also, Adblock Plus could also read data as a side-effect, but it doesn’t do anything like that of course. The latter isn’t because the permission system stops Adblock Plus from doing it, but simply because we are good people (and we also formulated this very restrictive privacy policy).

Sure everyone believes you. Such an honest and genuine person.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#35

Post by deno »

robryk wrote: post #30
deno wrote: post #11

Even if they copy the warnings verbatim, I’d like to at least suggest adapting some sort of icon set. Preferably with color coding: yellow for frequently requested permissions, red for infrequently requested permissions. Anything really, that let’s you know at glance what you’re about to install, without having to read a bullet point list. Colors are fine but unique icons would be even better. If it potentially affec…

> If it potentially affects user’s privacy anything but a scary looking big brother eye would be inappropriate. Well, what permissions don't?

I meant anything that let’s the extension leak any data. Contacting 3rd-party servers, modifying DOM etc. I suppose more granular permissions might be required here.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#36

Post by greendestiny_re »

I once asked a Mozilla developer why does Firefox display "Adobe Flash plugin blocked on this page" notification when the page apparently doesn't use Flash at all and choosing either option (allow/block) doesn't impede its functionality or change the appearance whatsoever.

The developer replied there are Flash cookies being set and it's possible an attack could come through them. When I asked if he knows about any such case happening, the answer was no. Then what is the purpose of bothering the user about an attack vector if the attack is merely theoretical?

My conclusion was that software products normally stimulate adoption by offering useful features but Firefox deviated from this attitude and adopted what I call "avoidance of annoyance" – the user has to upgrade to the latest version to avoid being annoyed by incessant popups and notifications that can only be delayed but never permanently removed.

The irony is that updating to the latest version of Firefox will get rid of the previous generation of notifications while bringing a new cycle, thus ensuring users are constantly kept in a state of anguish and frustration that will keep them updating for the sake of updating.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#37

Post by kettl3 »

robryk wrote: post #31
kettl2 wrote: post #22

Having spent some time looking at the code of popular Chrome extensions recently I was left really shaken about whats happening under the hood. Google's position seems to be, if a website can track you and monitor your behavior when you are on the page, then an extension should be able to do so too. But the extensions have a whole lot more capability. They can look at my history, bookmarks, all the fucking tabs I hav…

> At install time there is no reason Google can't say this extension uses Google Analytics to track where you are clicking etc and what data and how much data is being sent off everyday to god knows who. Let's say Google started to do this in a way that causes people not to want to use such extensions. Why do you think extension authors would stop using analytics as opposed to use some other analytics provider (that…

The extension framework already requires the developer to get permission for which URL's the extension is sending http requests to, in the manifest.

All I want is, to see that list of who is being sent data, before I install anything.

Especially in those extensions where no one would assume data is being sent at all - like in this example -

When I look at the "details" in Chrome it says no special permissions requested. When I look at the code its busy talking to Google Analytics and Firebase.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/super-simple-tasks...

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#38

Post by appleflaxen »

Chrome's permissions are not a panacea, but this article doesn't provide a convincingly better alternative.

"code review" doesn't scale, especially at the level of a nonprofit, when users are submitting their own add-ons. It may be that code review has a role (it's a compelling argument), but knowing exactly what an add-on is doing is really important.

One way in which it could be better: instead of "internet access" as a unit, provide a whitelist of sites the app can access. And, if the privileges change in any way, flag it for human review and maybe even reset the review count.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#39

Post by ComodoHacker »

The whole point about code review could change with the upcoming adoption of WebAssembly. A lot of add-on developers will definitely start to protect their source code. Especially for addons that do something shady, e.g. tracking users' behavior.

Re: Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions

#40

Post by [deleted] »

zeta0134 wrote: post #17
pfg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does make a good point regarding warning fatigue, which was one of the main reasons why Android is moving towards a permission system similar to what iOS does, i.e. ask for permission only when needed, and degrade gracefully if the permission is not granted. The previous system of showing a gigantic list of required permissions probably caused most users to a) blindly accept the permissions or b) not inst…

I think the biggest trouble is that the vast majority of useful browser extensions need to read and/or modify the content of web pages. Often both. So the ability to "Read and change all your data on the websites you visit" is a really common use case for extensions in general. I'd love to see some user controls on extensions. A great many ad blockers have a feature built in that allows you to disable them on particu…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN