reminds me of https://adnauseam.io/ 's clicked ad view https://adnauseam.io/img/adnauseam_vault.png
I love watching mine, and love watching the cost to advertisers.
Modern problems require modern solutions!
Button Stealer
11–20 of 84 posts
Re: Button Stealer
#12Is there a particular reason this uses Chrome-specific APIs instead of the standard WebExtensions API? I have considered experimenting with web extensions, but wondering what the practical limitations of the standard API are compared to the browser-specific APIs.
chrome doesn’t support web extension API
Re: Button Stealer
#13Issue with this “benign” extension is that it will be using “host_permissions”: “ ” In its manifest means it can basically do anything on any webpage you visit, scrape data etc. As an extension developer, no thanks. “Fun” pointless extensions like this that have no real utility, but funnily enough require broad permissions, are dangerous
just like 'Grammarly' which is basically just a keylogger
Re: Button Stealer
#14Issue with this “benign” extension is that it will be using “host_permissions”: “ ” In its manifest means it can basically do anything on any webpage you visit, scrape data etc. As an extension developer, no thanks. “Fun” pointless extensions like this that have no real utility, but funnily enough require broad permissions, are dangerous
> [...] but funnily enough require broad permissions
I don't think there is a way to implement this without said permission. You can always check out the code from GitHub and install the extension locally to avoid any malicious changes in the future.
Re: Button Stealer
#15This is the app version of a phishing email. Give us access to everything on every website you visit, just for some eye candy.
Bonzi buddy vibes
Re: Button Stealer
#16Issue with this “benign” extension is that it will be using “host_permissions”: “ ” In its manifest means it can basically do anything on any webpage you visit, scrape data etc. As an extension developer, no thanks. “Fun” pointless extensions like this that have no real utility, but funnily enough require broad permissions, are dangerous
> [...] but funnily enough require broad permissions I don't think there is a way to implement this without said permission. You can always check out the code from GitHub and install the extension locally to avoid any malicious changes in the future.
And that’s why it shouldn’t be in the Chrome app store at all.
As a hobbyist developer, having that kind of access in other people’s browsers is not something I want, and I’m suspicious of developers who do seem to want it. It’s like “hey, I wrote a fun game that requires root access.”
At least limit it to people who know what Github is.
Re: Button Stealer
#17Is there a particular reason this uses Chrome-specific APIs instead of the standard WebExtensions API? I have considered experimenting with web extensions, but wondering what the practical limitations of the standard API are compared to the browser-specific APIs.
There's some difference but a lot of overlap in the basic functionality - Firefox is compatible with all the chrome.* API calls I use in my own extension
Re: Button Stealer
#18Issue with this “benign” extension is that it will be using “host_permissions”: “ ” In its manifest means it can basically do anything on any webpage you visit, scrape data etc. As an extension developer, no thanks. “Fun” pointless extensions like this that have no real utility, but funnily enough require broad permissions, are dangerous
just like 'Grammarly' which is basically just a keylogger
Grammarly has to be able to connect back to their online service while the button addon could be implemented in a way that it can read every website but not send antyhing anywere (in theory, the addon could of course simulate a form and send data out through that or somehow).
But yeah i tested grammarly for 5 minutes and found it crazy.
there has to be a better way getting both worlds :|
Re: Button Stealer
#19Is there a particular reason this uses Chrome-specific APIs instead of the standard WebExtensions API? I have considered experimenting with web extensions, but wondering what the practical limitations of the standard API are compared to the browser-specific APIs.
chrome doesn’t support web extension API
Technically correct, but it is a bit more complex. The original web extension API is based on the chrome extension API. So most (there are some annoying exceptions at times) of the chrome extension API calls also work with very little adjustment on firefox. It becomes even easier when you use mozilla's polyfill library https://github.com/mozilla/webextension-polyfill
Then you can just target the promise based webextension syntax and as long as you still stick to the calls also available in chrome your extension works with very little effort in both browsers.
Safari is a different story which basically amounts to Apple being Apple and sort of supporting webextensions but in such a roundabout way that it is barely worth it for the majority of extension devs.
Re: Button Stealer
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
just like 'Grammarly' which is basically just a keylogger
Grammarly has to be able to connect back to their online service while the button addon could be implemented in a way that it can read every website but not send antyhing anywere (in theory, the addon could of course simulate a form and send data out through that or somehow). But yeah i tested grammarly for 5 minutes and found it crazy. there has to be a better way getting both worlds :|
Local software of course! But good luck getting funding for a product that doesn’t phone home every 5 seconds and present an opportunity to plague the user with ads “that they want to see”