51–60 of 155 posts
If this works, is there any reason this won’t work as a content blocker for safari?
Isn't the biggest problem with MV3 the 5000 rule limit? Or are there ways around that by compiling it into something internal? This is how adguard did it: https://adguard.com/en/blog/adguard-mv3.html I'd suggest stop trying to support chrome and let it die? It won't work on mobile anyway, only Firefox supports ublock origin on mobile?
So the future for chromium browser based adblock are small mini-forks that re-add the proper hooks needed to implement adblock properly
Gorhill should have a statue somewhere for making the web browseable.
He really should. I'd pitch in 50 EUR for that.
"Lite" is such a bad name, it's often a positive signifier that describes low resource usage/costs. It should have a more negative name, like uBlock Origin Reduced.
It was indeed named "uBO Minus", but what do you expect from Google? Accept that name?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem is that something pejorative on the surface is only meaningful to an end-user that is intimately familiar with the limitations of ManifestV3. You don't need to be "intimately familiar" with the limitations of ManifestV3, a casual understanding, from perhaps an explanatory note in the description of the extension, is sufficient to understand such a name.
Your average user has no interest in Google politics, nor would they bother to read through the explanation. Most people install an adblock to block ads. The politics of internet browsers and privacy only matter to power users.
"Lite" is such a bad name, it's often a positive signifier that describes low resource usage/costs. It should have a more negative name, like uBlock Origin Reduced.
A chance for the return of the Safari extension perhaps?
MV3 version should be directly portable.
I guess the biggest issue I have with V3 is I don't really "get it". The idea was initially that extensions have too many privileges and that malware can leverage those privileges for harm. I'd love data here! This is such a good area to share information on, as someone in security I'd really value that. I'd like to see case studies on malware, or even broad things like "malware uses these permissions X% of the time"…
I guess the general idea of manifest v3 is to limit the page/extension boundary to being declarative in nature. I haven't looked into this too much to know how restrictive it is in practice, but at least one such thing is that webRequest is neutered so extensions can't run their own logic for request pre/post processing (where they might try to obfuscate/disguise the target redirect), instead they have to declare the list of redirect targets upfront, where presumably they can be scanned by trivial static analysis.
While I think there is indeed a problem of malicious extensions, I don't believe that manifest v3 is the solution. Switch to a more granular but still non-declarative permission model might be useful to gain a stronger signal on malicious extensions, or maybe requiring web store extensions to be declarative but allowing "power-users" to still manually install non-declarative extensions.