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

Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

geoffreylitt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 189 posts

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#101

Post by stordoff »

wutbrodo wrote: post #90
scarface74 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides having to do it on every restart, that’s a good thing. It should be convoluted to do unsafe operations to protect the average user but allow the advanced user flexibility.

I feel like having a big scary warning would be sufficient instead of making it inconvenient. It's easy for a competent user to ignore a warning that they fully understand while it scares off those that are clueless.

It's also easy to ignore a warning you don't understand. I know from helping family they don't particularly care what warnings say - they have work to do, and they do know clicking OK makes it go away.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#102

Post by scarface74 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #87
scarface74 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is adding friction for advanced cases a bad thing? How is the browser suppose to know whether the user wrote the extension or downloaded it from the internet? We already see what happens when users download extensions and toolbars willy nilly.

Depends on your goal. If you want the computer to be "bicycle for the mind", you want to reduce friction so that "advanced" use isn't really "advanced", but normal . See also Hypercard, or how people use Excel in offices, or secretaries that extended Emacs because they didn't know writing Lisp was "programming", or countless other stories of end-user improvements. If you want the computer to be a digital television s…

Computers stopped being for enthusiasts by the early 90s - about the last time HyperCard was updated coincidentally. I remember the change well, it was around that time where the back of the InCider magazine stopped including code listings for interesting assembly language extensions for Basic and started listing “power users” tips.

Yes, I agree that having to re-enable extensions every time is too much, but going through contortions once isn’t.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#103

Post by koverda »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #98

On the contrary: Browser extensions are horribly overrated. They're a massive security problem (the number one place malware is found on a computer) often for the benefit of replacing the word "cloud" with "butt". They are rarely adequately audited or restricted and have far more access to private data than anyone generally realizes.

>> replacing the word "butt" with "butt"

Do you mean to say that extensions do nothing?

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#104

Post by ggggtez »

> personally use Chrome extensions that fill in my passwords, help me read Japanese kanji, simplify the visual design of Gmail, let me highlight and annotate articles, save articles for later reading, play videos at 2x speed, and of course, block ads.

So, autofill, autotranslate, HTML-only mode in gmail, (?), literally just bookmark it, any html5 video player, and of course, block ads (which most browsers seem to be moving to do by default). These are all either offered by the browser by default, or will be (though firefox seems more interested in adblocking than chrome right now).

Obviously they may not do it the same, but as someone who is suggesting addons offer a lot of power, the writer is not actually using most of that power. I kind of agree with browser developers that more often than not, extensions just offer a new vector for malware and no one really understands what power they have so they make bad choices.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#105

Post by gildas »

scarface74 wrote: post #92
gildas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some also claim that Google kills innovation. Synchronous interception of requests allows developers to program sophisticated rules to fight malicious resources. In the future, they will only have a regular expressions list to block domains. It will be much easier for malicious actors to bypass this feature.

It also allows developers to intercept your entire browsing history. If you care about your privacy, why would you let a random third party intercept all of your browsing history?

I consider everything to be a matter of risk in terms for example of privacy. By installing an extension like uBlock, I am indeed taking the risk you mentioned. However, I consider that the risk will be much higher when installing an extension that is based only on a list of regular expressions for the reason I mentioned. If uBlock did a bad thing, I'll know very quickly and all I'll have to do is install an alternative extension.

I am also a developer. I would like to continue to have the right to code such extensions for myself.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#106

Post by slg »

burtonator wrote: post #3

Extensions are awesome but I think this article is a bit too optimistic. I mean I share the optimism but in practice a major challenge is the platform. Chrome for example has a ton of limitations: https://getpolarized.io/2019/04/05/Google-Will-Kill-Chrome-E... If you want to do anything significant you have to get their 'permission' and at that point they throttle your extension release updates. You can't just push a…

Personal anecdote here, I have a Chrome extension with a few thousand users that has never been subject to this wait. That seems to be because I have a narrowly defined scope for my extension and therefore the permissions I request are relatively innocuous.

That exact article you linked was posted to HN a few months back. I remember someone dug into it and found the permissions it requested. The full list was rather broad and as a result the extension could have basically hijacked the entire browsing experience. A malicious extension with those permissions would have been a potential goldmine. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Google to want to review extensions like that.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#107

Post by quickthrower2 »

_trampeltier wrote: post #49

Not just browser extensions. I miss an API in all kind of software we use at work. No wonder the half of the companys in this world run on excel.

I am seriously considering learning emacs. As a lazy IDE guy, it feels like yak shaving and a lot of work, but I can sort of see how having that much control over your environment would be great, and setting up some cool workflows to make stuff quick and easy in the long run.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#108

Post by aiyodev »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #98

On the contrary: Browser extensions are horribly overrated. They're a massive security problem (the number one place malware is found on a computer) often for the benefit of replacing the word "cloud" with "butt". They are rarely adequately audited or restricted and have far more access to private data than anyone generally realizes.

Agreed. Those who think extensions are harmless clearly have their heads in the butts.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#109

Post by gnicholas »

apsanz wrote: post #47
gnicholas wrote: post #21

Browser extensions are also really important for accessibility. People with many kinds of disabilities use extensions to make websites more readable, easier to navigate, or more accessible in other ways. Unfortunately, the big mobile browsers do not support extensions, which is a huge blow to accessibility. I think Firefox for Android is the only mainstream-ish browser that supports extensions. Apple prevents them fr…

Which specific extensions work well? My wife is visually impaired and she has tried a several extensions. All of them have cause more problems than they have solved. In addition, IE and firefox's attempts to change behavior when using windows high contrast mode also breaks many sites. Safari is the browser that works the most reliably.

Well, I'm the founder of BeeLine Reader[1], and our extension is used for speed reading as well as accessibility (vision impairment, dyslexia, ADHD). I don't think it breaks websites, since we let the user decide how aggressively it should try to run. There are also night mode extensions, as well as site-specific ones (like for wikipedia) that are great.

1: http://www.beelinereader.com

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software

#110

Post by heavenlyblue »

dbandstra wrote: post #58
idoubtit wrote: post #4

I believe many people should attempt to create their own web extension, even if they don't publish it. In my younger years, I used to crack and hack software just for fun. Those were my Softice years. Later, when Opera was not Chromium based, I also had several site customisations, since it was very easy to add my own JS and CSS to any web site. Nowadays, I have 4 extensions created and tailored for my needs. One tha…

I think this is a great idea. I maintain a personal extension as well. I've experimented with a few ideas for augmenting browser experience, but so far I'm mostly just hiding obtrusive elements on various websites (mostly by CSS, with some JS where sites obfuscate class names). Even that would have taken multiple thirdparty extensions to accomplish - and probably would have required giving very broad permissions to t…

Is Stylish still compromised?
Post reply on HN