Live data from Hacker News

Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

geoffreylitt.com

201–210 of 320 posts

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#201
Back when Facebook was fun i paid 5 dollars to write a cross text extension. Back then i was doing a lot of those jokes where you get a popular saying, strike one word and write another one to make it funny.

What was funny to me is the fact the Facebook started to revert my posts when using this. I remember recording a video about it, don't know if i still have it though.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#202
Browsers REALLY have to fix the "read all your data" problem. Even with domain limitations, if you use an extension for a site, that means you use that site a lot, so you probably even have an account on it.

I think extensions should declare a bunch of CSS selectors that they need data access to, and if an element doesn't match those selectors, then all attributes and .innerText/.innerHTML should return undefined.

I don't care if normal people can't understand what CSS selectors are. Just hide it in "view technical details" box or something.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#204
post #50

I think what we need the most is a "view source" for browser extensions installed from the store: make it easy to view the source and to extract the browser extension into a folder. Make it easy to find out which web pages they access and which they modified. Minimized/encrypted code in extensions should be forbidden. It should be very easy to read the code. E.g. this extensions says "records user activity", but what…

In chrome go to chrome://extensions, enable developer mode, and now you can view source for any extension in devtools. The content scripts are already available in the regular web page's devtools without enabling developer mode. The total list of websites is available in the installation popup for the extension. The chrome web store already bans code obfuscation. minification is allowed as there's no meaningful way t…

Is there any legitimate reason to minify code for extensions? The size gains are minimal since it's a one time thing. But I agree that it would be hard to enforce, though google "manages" to enforce even more ambiguous requirements on their play store haha. I guess they could make it a guideline or a requirement, and "good faith" devs would comply even if it would be hard to enforce.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#205
post #190
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Russian messages?

06/07/2016 and 10/30/2017, and 11/22/2018, I think there may be one or two more but I am too lazy. cool idea to publish those. i remember when the pirate bay was publishing takedown notices in a special, public, category

I am not the the developer of the extension. It's just interesting issue I have come across.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most browser extensions by weight are Google Chrome extensions. Google Chrome is unambiguously demonstrating that no API is safe in its quest to juice revenues. Anybody who builds extensions using Chrome's APIs should be very aware that they're quite possibly putting effort into something a juggernaut will stomp away without a second thought. How unlike developing for literally any other environment.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic. There's a spectrum between developing for Lua (juggernaut is super friendly), Python (juggernaut is mostly friendly, even if 2->3 caused a lot of casualties), Go (in spite of the corporate backer, quite careful about not stomping) and Chrome. Yes, there's always a counter-party. My point is it saves a lot of later grief to consider up front the counter-party you're entering int…

Which, for plenty of Chrome extensions, is fine.

Google has removed capabilities for certain categories and it's pretty easy to figure out what's going to be risky.

But I use a set of very useful extensions, none of which present any problem to Google, all of which are extremely useful, and all of which I expect to stick around.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#207
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't imagine not using extensions. I'm 39 and have been on the web since Netscape etc in the early 90s and I honestly care more about the extensions than I do anything the browser actually does. Like, if there were no extensions I don't think I'd care at all if I used Firefox, Chrome, Opera, etc. But Chrome and Firefox have this massive, massive ecosystem of productitivy improving extensions. I'll give an…

Hello. I used to use Dark Reader but then some it changed hands and a very questionable update appeared and freaked many people out, so I uninstalled. IIRC the changes were removed, or the additional code was not correctly activated, maybe both. Anyway, you may wish to check the status of that particular extension. I use some flag in config now to do approximately the same thing, it’s not as effective, but it’s close…

Link to Dark Reader changing hands and questionable update?

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#208
post #148

Post author here! I wrote this post five years ago. Since then, my conviction in the value of customizable software has only grown, but I've also updated my thinking in a few ways: 1) AI AI is rapidly getting better at coding. Current AI is often bad at high-level architecture but is capable of making small local tweaks. Seems like a good fit for the kind of code you need to write a browser extension! I'm exploring t…

The security problem of open platforms is the key. Anything that is open enough to let someone who knows what they're doing customize the system to their liking, will also be abused by bad actors persuading people who don't know what they are doing to customize the system in ways that harm them. The fact I can write my own custom keyboards on Android is great! But the fact someone can convince your grandparents to in…

Custom keyboards are a great example of an app that - by default - shouldn't have write access to shared resources (that is, no network access, no writing to files which other apps can read).

Adding either of those entitlements to a keyboard app should require extremely scary dialogs. Needs to be possible - perhaps you want your password manager with sync to be part of the keyboard app - but it's clearly a huge risk.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#209
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a permission system?

The issue the parent is trying to solve is you don't really have fine grained enough control, or apps nag you and won't load until you give them everything they want. My mom has a cheap camera security app that allows me to see the live streams from remote. Every single time I open the app it asks me again if I want to allow it access to my local network. The answer is a resounding "no". If I could just say "fake yes…

XPrivacyLua for Android does just that. It requires LSPosed, which enables deep modifications of the OS and other apps. Needless to say, that has its own security implications.

Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)

#210
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is already a permission system?

The issue the parent is trying to solve is you don't really have fine grained enough control, or apps nag you and won't load until you give them everything they want. My mom has a cheap camera security app that allows me to see the live streams from remote. Every single time I open the app it asks me again if I want to allow it access to my local network. The answer is a resounding "no". If I could just say "fake yes…

I wish it were easier to deny internet access to Apps. It isn't a perfect solution but it prevents the simplest data theft. Unfortunately side channel attacks are still too easy: Either a cooperating app, or send once of high value data via a link click opening the browser.

From what I can tell, internet access is the default just to allow apps to have advertising. Too cynical?

Android originally could deny internet access to Apps which I found useful.

Certainly I don't want an extension or plugin to have pull access to the internet. That may limit functionality. But often only push is needed (e.g. blocking list could be pushed). No third-party keyboard should have internet access.

Edit: rewrote a little clearer.

Post reply on HN