GitHub confirms breach of 3,800 repos via malicious VSCode extension

I use Emacs for my day-to-day stuff. I don't think Emacs extensions are more secure by design. Pretty sure that, if I wanted to, I could craft an extension that does bad things. I'm not sure how hard it would've been to sneak it past MELPA or (is there really anything else people are using these days? Used to be Marmalade, but I think it's gone), but, it's people, and people make mistakes, so, there's some % chance that a bad extension can be inserted there. Such security problems happen to a lesser extent (if at all?) in the Emacs world because of the size of the user base. It's simply impractical to target a small community, as it's always a numbers game.

Very unwillingly, and with a lot of contempt, I use Android, where this "explicit permissions system" you speak of exists. There are many reasons to hate Android, and the "explicit permissions system" is a prominent member in that collective.

Companies like MS, Google etc. always default to this way of solving their security issues: by restricting their users from doing useful things. They model their users as a herd of brainless lemmings who must be herded with an iron fist in order for them not to plunge to their deaths (yes, I know, real-life lemmings don't do that, but we all know the metaphor). And this tactics is so common that the MS-lemmings learn to yearn for it.

The solution I want to see to this and similar problems is two-fold:

1. Users learn to use their tools.

2. Users learn to treat important information on their computers in a more defensive way, if they open the door for outside, potentially bad, software providers.

This is, of course, a pie in the sky sort of wish... But, imagine it was achievable, wouldn't the world be a better place? Now, I believe it's possible to approach these goals gradually, and it would still be better than a system imposed by the software provider that prevents users from doing useful things.

For example, Emacs has a mechanism to prompt users when attempting to use a particular functionality. Some of it is because the functionality can be surprising for the novice, some of it is because it could be dangerous from the security standpoint. So, in principle, VSCode could do that too. Eg. a user would have to interactively grant its extensions permissions to call whatever functionality within the editor, while some "dangerous" functionality would have to be removed from the JavaScript runtime available to VSCode and only made available in this interactive way (eg. when JavaScript code in VSCode extensions wants to call exec() or similar, it would have to call an overloaded exec() provided by VSCode, that would inform the user that such-and-such extension wishes to run such-and-such command, and that it needs their permission to do it).