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

Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

bleepingcomputer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 448 posts

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#251

Post by frabert »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #192
frabert wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, he doesn't think they are stupid, just that they don't know the difference between browsers. If my mechanic mounted a new transmission or something that wasn't the same brand as the one mounted before, and told me "it's the new version", I couldn't care less as long as it worked as intended. I don't know anything about transmissions, so from my point of view I have no way of knowing if what he's telling me is…

If my mechanic mounted a new transmission from another brand without telling me beforehand that he intended to do so, and I found out later, then I would immediately lose all trust in such a mechanic.

Why did he mount a different brand? Was it because he thinks it's better? Maybe it's cheaper, but otherwise equivalent? I have no way of knowing, and I trust his judgement entirely. On the other hand, if I went to my mechanic and said "Look Bob, I want an ACME Turboencabulator v2 mounted" I believe he would be happy to do so. The point is, most users don't even know what a browser is and just want to get back to facebook ASAP, and don't care if you tell them you installed an ACME Turboencabulator or a Stark Industries Turboelectroencabulator.

Of course, we all know the original Turboencabulator is GE and all the others are knockoffs, but I've tried other brands and they work just as well, if not even better.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#252

Post by bambax »

cletus wrote: post #157

Did anyone actually read the submission? The title is clickbait that doesn't reflect the content. The change here moves modifying content of the webRequest to the browser from the extension. This is fundamentally more secure. Allowing third-party extensions to inspect and _modify_ arbitrary HTTP requests is nothing short of dangerous. The new declarative API (from the article) limits such extensions to 30,000 rules.…

> I honestly don't know what impact this will have on ad blockers

But adblockers authors do know. Instead of accusing people of not reading the article, feel free to read what uBlock origin author has to say about this change.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#253

Post by chopin »

wffurr wrote: post #224

Half of all detected malicious extensions used the web request API to spy on users. The rule limit has already been raised to 150,000. Plenty of ad blockers will still work in Chrome. This thread is chock full of motivated reasoning and deliberate misinformation.

Afaik they can do this still. This can't be the motivation.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#254

Post by malka »

cletus wrote: post #157

Did anyone actually read the submission? The title is clickbait that doesn't reflect the content. The change here moves modifying content of the webRequest to the browser from the extension. This is fundamentally more secure. Allowing third-party extensions to inspect and _modify_ arbitrary HTTP requests is nothing short of dangerous. The new declarative API (from the article) limits such extensions to 30,000 rules.…

Google is the worst actor to push for this. I have 0 trust in them that they are doing this for the right reasons, and that I will benefit as a user.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#255

Post by Razengan »

rusk wrote: post #143
moomin wrote: post #15

This is the point in the dominance cycle where the dominant player decides they no longer need to be the fastest or the most secure and that their dominance will allow them to coast along doing their thing. There’s nothing particularly inevitable about what happens next, but let’s hope they get an IE6-sized kick in the teeth.

has anyone else noticed a marked decline in the quality of Google search results over the last 12 months? I swear, around about 2011 I thought Google was going to become self aware but it's declined from that high-point to a point where duckduckgo has become a viable alternative for more than just reasons of privacy. Which is a great thing! Turns out "Don't be Evil" was more than just a feel-good marketing slogan. It…

> has anyone else noticed a marked decline in the quality of Google search results over the last 12 months?

I noticed this since around 3-4 years ago.

It seems to be based on region.

Quotes get ignored. Even very specific queries about X prioritize clickbait junk like "TOP 10 X!!"

I THINK they might be anti-competitive too; searching for particular Apple APIs is sometimes more miss than hit, though that might be because of Apple's own poor documentation.

However, most Apple-related searches used to show me Samsung crap, and that's definitely not benign. Like searching for "iPhone" literally presented an ad for the Samsung Galaxy at the top, for a while.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#256

Post by tinus_hn »

cletus wrote: post #157

Did anyone actually read the submission? The title is clickbait that doesn't reflect the content. The change here moves modifying content of the webRequest to the browser from the extension. This is fundamentally more secure. Allowing third-party extensions to inspect and _modify_ arbitrary HTTP requests is nothing short of dangerous. The new declarative API (from the article) limits such extensions to 30,000 rules.…

So, some handwaving and all concerns go away because they are 'tired narratives'. Why not just block all extensions? That's clearly the most secure solution.

> I honestly don't like the fact that I have to give a third party developer so much privileged access to run an ad blocker

Then don't, install another one that works the way you want. Or don't, because the limited blocking abilities you appear to find sufficient can be gained just as well using an external proxy.

> Extensions can be compromised.

So can browsers, devices and operating systems.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#257

Post by fastball »

chatmasta wrote: post #237
fastball wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not something like Brave which has the performance of Chromium (still better than Firefox imo) because it's a fork but probably won't make similar business decisions to Google?

By the same logic you could use Microsoft Edge, which is now chromium based and effectively a chrome shell.

Very true, but I think I trust Brave more than I trust Microsoft to try to keep the internet neutral as such.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#258

Post by exergy »

moomin wrote: post #148
9dl wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did it like this Install FF Set it as default Change path on desktop shortcut for "Internet" to FF And ofc do not forget to say that is new IE version

If you’re on Windows, you need to set up edge-deflector too, which is a fairly advanced piece of idiocy.

There is a way to get rid of Edge by renaming its install folder or something like that. I did it, and I love it.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#259

Post by bambax »

cletus wrote: post #180
malvosenior wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So rather than be alarmist and use this to feed into the tired narrative that "Google is killing ad blockers because it's an advertising company" That’s not alarmist, it’s the obvious truth. As a user I should have complete control over what runs on my machine. I don’t need Google “protecting” me (by breaking ad blockers). Google is the single most destructive force in the tech industry today. Very much like Micros…

> As a user I should have complete control over what runs on my machine. You do. By running Firefox. This level of control might be useful to you but it's not to most users. As much as power users chafe against things like the App Store, for example, this is clearly a win for most users. Limiting what a malicious extension could do is very much the same because I can guarantee you there are scams to get users to inst…

> How Firefox should respond here is to make ad-blocking a first party solution.

Okay, yes -- that would be an interesting move. Not sure they can afford it but it would be great.

Re: Google Begins Testing Extension Manifest V3 in Chrome Canary

#260

Post by malvosenior »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #238
malvosenior wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think anyone could be naive enough to believe ads help the open web. > Stock options and bosses with different incentives are available at other employers as well. Most other employers don’t have a near monopoly on the web browser market.

>I don’t think anyone could be naive enough to believe ads help the open web I don't think assuming bad faith with absolute certainty is a productive form of debate. [Edit]: As a matter of fact, I don't believe that advertising is entirely replaceable as a funding mechanism for the open web at this point in time. That doesn't mean we have to accept all its excesses without resistance. >Most other employers don’t have…

> I don't think assuming bad faith with absolute certainty is a productive form of debate.

It’s not a debate though, Google is removing these user friendly features and sprinkling some marketing speak over their actions. It’s right to call them out on that. Also, if your job is to be the face of that marketing speak, you should expect people to question what you say.

[edit] Funding and openness are tangential. A system need not be profitable to be open. Look at open source.

Post reply on HN