Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? Has the browser extension landscape changed significantly since then?
It's just a Hacker News convention to include the year in parentheses if the article isn't freshly published. It doesn't have anything to do with the content of the article itself.
Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
51–60 of 320 posts
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#52I wish browser extensions had more fine-grained permissions but it's a tricky problem verifying if software is using permissions maliciously (see the Obfuscated C Code Contest and the Underhand C Contest) and how to communicate nuanced permissions to users (most users don't read and/or understand tech stuff, and can be easily mislead). A tip in Chrome that I never see mentioned if you want to be extra safe when tryin…
Firefox user here, I wish Multi-Account Containers had a way to disable extensions per container. I don't need any on my banking site. Sure I could use separate Profile but UX hurts here.
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#53They're not full extensions, but userscripts and user styles go a long way, and extensions exist that allow people to create/use them in the browser (eg. Tampermonkey[0] and Stylus[1].) I consider them incredibly important, even though they can't do as much as extensions.
[0] https://www.tampermonkey.net/ [1] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/stylus/clngdbkpkpe...
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#54Many popular browser extensions were bought up by data brokers that use them to exfiltrate browser history, so not sure if they’re underrated, I think you have to be pretty careful as the extension security/privacy model is/was pretty awful. I e.g. know screenshotting extensions (Awesome Screenshot) that would vacuum up your browser history and send it to a data broker in Israel. So probably better to have that as a…
Yes. Because of this and the lack of fine-grained permissions mentioned by a sibling comment, I tend to use desktop apps where I can instead of extensions, keeping my extensions list quite slim — basically all I install are FOSS extensions by “big” known-good authors (e.g. Raymond Hill) or projects that aren’t going to sell out. Of course risks exist with desktop apps too, but historically this kind of buy-and-exfilt…
Mac App Store apps are (mostly) sandboxed. Developer ID signed Mac apps distributed outside the App Store are mostly not sandboxed.
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a Hacker News convention to include the year in parentheses if the article isn't freshly published. It doesn't have anything to do with the content of the article itself.
Sure, but it's generally only done when that added context is important. I think this article could easily have been written yesterday.
No, it's almost always done, unless someone forgets.
Currently in the top 3 pages of HN there are 12 submissions with (20XY) at the end of the title. It's extremely common.
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#56I 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…
The other problem is that the extensions can update. You typically get zero notification an extension was updated. Most extensions start off safe, but later get sold and used to farm data.
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#57I wish the chrome store gave badges to extensions like mine to make people more aware, give a filter when searching for new extensions, and to encourage least permissive development.
The chrome store extension rules are also unevenly enforced. Take a look at the source code for something like 1password. It is full of obfuscation and completely unintelligible which is against the store rules. I base64 encoded a single string that was my json dict in an otherwise completely readable js file and it went through on one publish but a few versions later was red flagged.
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#58problem is you can't sell them.
I actually make a living selling browser extensions in the iOS and Mac App Store. Apple users are willing to pay.
I used to sell my extension in the Chrome Web Store, until Google eliminated Chrome Web Store Payments (mentioned by another commenter). However, even with Google's payment system, my sales were extremely low; thus it wasn't worth my time to implement my own payment system in the Chrome Web Store.
Apparently Firefox also used to have a payment system for add-ons but eliminated it.
This is purely a choice by the browsers. Chrome and Firefox have chosen to demonetize extensions. Safari has chosen to monetize extensions.
Re: Browser extensions are underrated: the promise of hackable software (2019)
#59[1] https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/css-selector-helper...