Live data from Hacker News

Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

github.com

191–200 of 374 posts

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#191
post #128
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most galling offer we saw on the mobile app side was something that would turn on the user's microphone, and listen for ads on tvs around them to track what they'd been exposed to offline. Adtech is such a thoroughly gross field.

When I worked on audio firmware for the BlackBerry, one of the external devices I had to support was called a "security plug", which just shorted the headset mic and headphones to ground. It always seemed kind of silly to me because there was still the handset mic on the phone that could be activated separately.

Did an external mic not stop the internal one from working? I assume the plug was a box-checking exercise more than anything.

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#192

I don't know what the solution to this is, but I know a few trusted/legitimate companies that sell their user data for around £20/year even after having monetized their users with actual money I will never do this because violating privacy goes against the core of my beliefs, but there is a conflict I can't seem to work out. On the one hand, I KNOW that the vast majority of users prefer to sell their privacy than pay…

Open source, audited extensions. I noticed this already exists in Firefox (https://mzl.la/3Acn4DU), I don't know of any auditors for Chrome extensions.

Have some trusted organization or group (like Google or Mozilla themselves) who run audits on extensions to "certify" they don't have any malware. Additionally, the extensions are all 100% open-source, so if the "trusted organization" is compromised (or just bad at their job), they'll get caught and people will stop using them.

This isn't foolproof. Adware can be hidden from even the auditor or the auditor can be compromised but nobody finds out. It's also expensive and time-consuming, especially for extensions with a lot of complex code, so many popular extensions which perfectly-fine are still not certified. Updates are delayed and discouraged because the diff always has to be audited as well. Lastly (and something which can easily be overlooked), the auditors can be biased towards approving some extensions (like those who pay them) while not approving others: extensions code won't be approved if their code is too hard to read or they are later in the review queue, but the line at which code is considered "too hard to read" and their position in the queue could easily be influenced by cash.

Nonetheless, web extensions are a good type of software to audit, compared to other software like apps. They're often much smaller and simpler, users need much less, and they operate in a very-trusted domain (all web browing, including in banks and other confidential sites. Compare this to apps on a sandboxed phone, or programs running in user mode on a computer, the damage is still there but it's much less)

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#193

Hard to turn down $20k/month for doing basically nothing. Props to the author.

That is nothing. I turned down the opportunity to inherit a Saudi Prince’s fortune for doing nothing (well just needed to pay his sons bail bond or something)

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might at least make these attacks harder if users could disable extension updates, or had to opt into them. Most of these extensions are simple and don't really need to be updated, yet the update mechanism is silent full auto bada bing bada boom no rollbacks. I can't think of any updates more aggressive, not even Steam.

Yet another opportunity to recommend Firefox to readers. I'm not sure I advise doing it, but you can go to about:addons and hit the gear icon and you can uncheck "Update Addons Automatically". Even better, click on an extension and under the "details" tab there's an option per-addon to set whether you want automatic updates or not, so you can disable updates just for the one addon you don't trust (or enable updates j…

Thanks for mentioning this

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#195
Keeping track of which extension goes rogue or what eventually breaks if not maintained gets really tiring. After dealing with this so many times, some strategies have stuck:

0. Prefer extensions that work locally, no data sent out anywhere.

1. Keep an extension audit profile, meant for testing them a bit.

2. Use different extensions for my main daily driver profile, shopping comparison profile, etc.

2. The audit profile also has bookmarks of the extensions I'm using and others for later review, or looking back, helps me declutter the main profile a bit.

3. Use https://chrome-stats.com/ to check the extensions' pedigree, they have a trust meter based on the amount of permissions asked, how long has the developer been around, etc.

4. Do your own review on what goes out with developer tools on requests, especially if the extension needs permission to a control domain. Many will tell you in the Privacy Policy that they don't collect anything PERSONAL, but need to process your data somehow, and from an initial look you can't really tell it's a service or the extension itself doing it. Lack of clear wording is key here.

5. Some mask the control domain using a subdomain of a cloud platform to host the app, so it looks more trustable, and tell they only send telemetry data there.

6. Prefer stuff that's also on github, but don't trust blindly: some developers have just posted a boilerplate hello world there.

Two related anecdotes:

1. The Glarity extension (AI GPT autocomplete stuff) is open source, you can find it on github too, it explicitly said it worked only with your OpenAI API key only, yet when installing it, it just worked and I was getting GPT-powered summaries. They have their own service, where they relay all your input, but there is no documentation of it anywhere. I didn't double check if those requests stopped once you added your own API key. That was months ago, now just checked before posting, still no news from them on that functionality. While I can ascribe this to just general sloppiness, there've been some repos with serious accusations of stolen keys (lencx/nofwl)

2. I've had login data leaked with a shopping extension, where Chrome alerted me and disabled it. That was in 2021. It was pulled from the store. Months later I start getting login notifications in my email to some websites I use with my 'shopping/price compare' profile. They were attempts from Russia. The websites alerted to my email yet let session go through, since I don't use 2fa. It seems they were scanning for some saved credit card or something.

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#196

This one is interesting because it seems harmless, if not even helpful (Monitoring DNS errors). What am I missing here? "I’m sure you get business proposals all the time, so I’ll get straight to the point. I hope what I’m proposing is a little different and might actually interest you. I like Hover Zoom+ as a great alternative to it’s bigger brother Hover Zoom that lost its glamour over the last couple of months. We'…

They doth protest too much methinks, about how Google has never had a problem with them.

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#197
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do that with local processing. For the music thing it calculates a hash locally and send it to their servers.

That still requires the microphone to be active, right?

Yes, but it doesn't record anything. It calculates a hash locally and sends that hash to their servers, where it is then identified.

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#198
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean showing you ads for diapers because you googled "best diapers" falls under that same category and I daresay isn't evil at all

Advertising, by its very nature, is emotional manipulation with the goal of getting you to give up some of your money for something you most likely don't really need and won't improve your life all that much, if at all. To me, that's evil. Sure, there are varying degrees of this evil, but IMO even the least-objectionable advertising out there still can't be called "good". In my experience, the case where advertising…

> Advertising, by its very nature, is emotional manipulation with the goal of getting you to give up some of your money for something you most likely don't really need and won't improve your life all that much

I've heard somewhere that ads are rich people screaming "give me money".

(i know, i know, but i like it)

> To me, that's evil.

Bill Hicks on marketing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0

Re: Temptations of an open-source Chrome extension developer (2021)

#199
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked on audio firmware for the BlackBerry, one of the external devices I had to support was called a "security plug", which just shorted the headset mic and headphones to ground. It always seemed kind of silly to me because there was still the handset mic on the phone that could be activated separately.

Did an external mic not stop the internal one from working? I assume the plug was a box-checking exercise more than anything.

I think the default audio routing was setup to stop the internal mic, but if you used the mixer API, you could do weird, custom things.
Post reply on HN