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

A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 614 posts

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#451

Post by mwcampbell »

radicalbyte wrote: post #6

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

I like Mozilla's principles in theory, but this warning from the user guide for GrapheneOS [1] (successor to CopperheadOS) is alarming, and applies to more than just Android:

> Avoid Gecko-based browsers like Firefox as they're currently much more vulnerable to exploitation and inherently add a huge amount of attack surface. Gecko doesn't have a WebView implementation (GeckoView is not a WebView implementation), so it has to be used alongside the Chromium-based WebView rather than instead of Chromium, which means having the remote attack surface of two separate browser engines instead of only one. Firefox / Gecko also bypass or cripple a fair bit of the upstream and GrapheneOS hardening work for apps. Worst of all, Firefox runs as a single process on mobile and has no sandbox beyond the OS sandbox. This is despite the fact that Chromium semantic sandbox layer on Android is implemented via the OS isolatedProcess feature, which is a very easy to use boolean property for app service processes to provide strong isolation with only the ability to communicate with the app running them via the standard service API. Even in the desktop version, Firefox's sandbox is still substantially weaker (especially on Linux, where it can hardly be considered a sandbox at all) and lacks support for isolating sites from each other rather than only containing content as a whole.

So, despite concerns about monoculture, I guess Chromium-based browsers other than Chrome are the most practical solution for now.

[1]: https://grapheneos.org/usage

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#452

Post by rvnx »

mthoms wrote: post #205
unityByFreedom wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. Plus, even with Brave, you'd still need to install the latest uBO from github, so there's no benefit aside from "I hate Google but I'll still use a fork of their open source browser"

>there's no benefit Brave doesn't have all the Chrome telemetry (etc) as I understand it.

Yes they have their own telemetry (like Firefox).

They were using Mixpanel before, but they got complain from users, so eventually they added a proxy in front of Mixpanel (but that doesn't change anything since Mixpanel generates an UID, so what's the point of hiding the IP ?).

https://github.com/brave/metric-proxy

It's used for tracking user performance when distributing BAT (otherwise you would have no referral program possible), that's how they distributed the initial 5 USD

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#453

Post by Santosh83 »

aninteger wrote: post #357
radicalbyte wrote: post #6

It's time to switch to Firefox as my main web browser. It's faster and generally more efficient than Chrome plus it has the most important extensions. The most surprising thing is that the Android version of Firefox is excellent. So good that I switched from Chrome a few months ago when this expected news first dropped. No ads on mobile is awesome.

There are some sites that don't work well in Firefox, like Cisco's WebEx. The web client will disconnect and reconnect causing everyone to constantly hear a disconnect and entry beep when your audio cuts out. On Chromium there is no problem on the same machine. This is on Xubuntu Linux.

Maybe you can report it with this tool? https://webcompat.com/

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#454

Post by snaky »

dessant wrote: post #437
matheusmoreira wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't Chromium be modified in order to use other extension sources?

It can be, but then you'll be left with a modified browser that has little or no users.

It depends on amount of people willing to use it. Bromite and Ungoogled-Chromium have some userbase.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#455

Post by lend000 »

dessant wrote: post #450
dependenttypes wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason that this was resolved was because ublock is a popular project. The other projects linked there did not have as much luck. Just the fact that they reply in this way on issues is disgusting: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/745#iss... https://github.com/dessant/search-by-image/issues/57#issueco...

Armin here, the developer of Search by Image. After that experience I felt it's necessary to share the entire discussion. That is how Google treats developers in exchange for enriching their platform, with a list of nonsense allegations, and if you speak up, retaliation. This practice is well documented at this point, and the best way out for those targeted is to hold your head down and maybe plead for help on social…

On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#456

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

Santosh83 wrote: post #444
echelon wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google must be forced to divest of its search business, Android business, ad business, browser business, office software, and web properties into wholly separate corporate entities. The same should happen to Apple. Both companies are anti-consumer monopolies.

Separate companies can still collude and cooperate for larger mutual ends... especially if they're only nominally separate.

Are you arguing that there are no costs associated with collusion vs. being an actual monopoly?

Do you think that being broken up will have no impact whatsoever on the incentives and outcomes for consumers?

Or simply that the effect will be insignificant?

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#457

Post by celdon25 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #445
lazyguy2 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being stonewalled by bureaucracy with no explanation given is nothing new.

You can shout at bureaucrats. You have some basic rights. You can demand escalation of your issue. You can't do much when your Google account is banned.

Sounds more like the USSR than the USA

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#458

Post by behnamoh »

unicornfinder wrote: post #322
tomxor wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if it's been on purpose or just, as always, their automatic algorithms being imposible to contest when they're wrong. Further down the github issue, another person attempts to submit the same build recieving the same response. But then asks for clarification on the applicability to uBlock only to receive an excerpt from ToC bundling advice... Pretty sure this is not algorithmic. As the dev said they are be…

Indeed. A friend of mine used to work on YouTube's moderation team. Turns out a lot of the "algorithm" is actually humans, hiding behind the shield of automation.

This scares me a little as "it was algorithm's fault" seems to be a good excuse for tech companies to get away with their monopolistic behavior. A few years down the road and they'll blame "AI" for the misconduct.

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#459

Post by dessant »

lend000 wrote: post #455
dessant wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Armin here, the developer of Search by Image. After that experience I felt it's necessary to share the entire discussion. That is how Google treats developers in exchange for enriching their platform, with a list of nonsense allegations, and if you speak up, retaliation. This practice is well documented at this point, and the best way out for those targeted is to hold your head down and maybe plead for help on social…

On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability. There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.

> On the other hand, blindly accepting browser extension upgrades is a huge security vulnerability.

That argument can be applied to any software, being allowed to run code on your devices comes not just with the freedom, but also the risks. I don't think restricting people's freedoms is the right way to somewhat reduce the occurrence of malware.

> There was a post some time ago about how popular extension projects often get bought by adware/spyware companies and they were able to publish malicious changes directly to user's browsers without any validation.

I think you're referring to one of my blog posts. :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20587440

https://armin.dev/blog/2019/08/supporting-browser-extension-...

Re: A uBlock Origin update was rejected from the Chrome Web Store

#460

Post by pg_is_a_butt »

behnamoh wrote: post #458
unicornfinder wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. A friend of mine used to work on YouTube's moderation team. Turns out a lot of the "algorithm" is actually humans, hiding behind the shield of automation.

This scares me a little as "it was algorithm's fault" seems to be a good excuse for tech companies to get away with their monopolistic behavior. A few years down the road and they'll blame "AI" for the misconduct.

A few years down the road we'll all be living without electricity in war-torn hellscape thanks to the "AI" launching nuclear EMPs everywhere.
Post reply on HN