Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #17339 > unrolled thread

Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently "!!Credit" <payroll@qi3.com> - 2019-01-26 04:56 +0000
    Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-26 10:54 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently outlook shitemail <microsuck@msn.com> - 2019-01-26 13:14 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in  Chrome. For safety, apparently Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-01-26 18:54 -0400
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in  Chrome. For safety, apparently Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2019-01-27 00:50 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in  Chrome. For safety, apparently Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-01-27 00:06 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in  Chrome. For safety, apparently Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-01-27 19:30 -0400
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in  Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-27 11:11 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in   Chrome. For safety, apparently Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2019-01-27 19:25 -0400
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in   Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-28 09:25 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Bruce Horrocks <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2019-01-28 23:46 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 00:25 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2019-02-01 00:37 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-01 00:58 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2019-02-01 14:10 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-01 00:54 +0000
          Pi-hole (Was: Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-02-01 07:59 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2019-02-01 11:48 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> - 2019-02-01 09:00 -0600
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-02 02:05 +0000
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently tom <tom@0.0.0.0> - 2019-02-17 11:42 -0800
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-17 20:24 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> - 2019-02-18 11:27 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-18 11:35 +0000
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-18 21:57 +0000
              Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-02-18 22:33 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-02-18 21:46 +0000
    Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-26 17:58 +0100
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-26 23:15 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-01-26 23:22 +0000
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-01-27 11:09 +0000
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:01 +0100
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 07:56 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-28 11:26 +0000
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 15:11 +0100
      Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2019-01-27 19:58 +0100
        Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> - 2019-01-28 08:03 +0100
          Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2019-01-30 22:01 +0000
            Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 15:34 -0800
              Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-01-30 23:54 +0000
                Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 20:33 -0800
                  Re: Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2019-02-20 03:31 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#17383

snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
>Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> Get a PiHole.
>> 
>> <https://pi-hole.net/>

>Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
>I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  

The pi-hole will work for every device in your network. Ie. your
smartphone, tablet, smarttv, etc. etc. whatever you have connected and
is setup to show ads.
The hosts file will be just the single machine you put it on.

While I don't have any numbers on if a huge hosts file slows down your
network activity, I'd expect that the lookup using a huge hosts file is
probably a bit slower than the DNS lookup purpose built algorithms. 
If that is noticible enough or not is questionable.



-- 
Doug McIntyre
doug@themcintyres.us

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17386

In comp.misc Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> wrote:
> snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) writes:
>>Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> Get a PiHole.
>>> 
>>> <https://pi-hole.net/>
> 
>>Is that better than a hosts file such as is offered by MVPS?
>><https://mvpshostsnews.blogspot.com> 
>>I find it works well, is easy to set up and needs no extra hardware.  
> 
> The pi-hole will work for every device in your network. Ie. your
> smartphone, tablet, smarttv, etc. etc. whatever you have connected and
> is setup to show ads.
> The hosts file will be just the single machine you put it on.

Yes, though on my network all the devices are PCs with easily
writable hosts files anyway. Plus the software running on all
of them is set up not to show ads. But I just don't like
networked devices running software that I can't control in the
first place. I pay for those bytes, so I'll decide how my money
is spent!

> While I don't have any numbers on if a huge hosts file slows down your
> network activity, I'd expect that the lookup using a huge hosts file is
> probably a bit slower than the DNS lookup purpose built algorithms. 
> If that is noticible enough or not is questionable.

Looking into it back in the FF 3.6 days, there was a rumour that a
huge hosts file caused Firefox to at least be slower to load because
it builds its own cache of the file at start-up. I decided that it
wasn't worth finding out given that script blockers and lightweight
web browsers got me where I want to be anyway.

I do have some entries on most computers blocking Facebook and
Twitter domains to stop them loading the stupid social media
icons on pages from their servers (which is a stupid way to
design a website anyway). Plus there are some on certain computers
put in when a particular service really annoys me for some reason,
it makes me feel better at least.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17471

On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> Get a PiHole.
No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services

-- 
 _____________________________________ 
/ "Today, of course, it is considered \
| very poor taste to use the F-word   |
| except in major motion pictures."   |
|                                     |
\ -- Dave Barry, "$#$%#^%!^%&@%@!"    /
 ------------------------------------- 
\
 \
   /\   /\   
  //\\_//\\     ____
  \_     _/    /   /
   / * * \    /^^^]
   \_\O/_/    [   ]
    /   \_    [   /
    \     \_  /  /
     [ [ /  \/ _/
    _[ [ \  /_/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17472

On 2019-02-17, tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Get a PiHole.
> No, 

Sigh.

> stop using Chrome and any other google products and services

As well as ...


-- 
Today is Pungenday, the 48th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
'O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, Consider Phlebas,
            who was once handsome and tall as you.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17474

tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Get a PiHole.
> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
> 

Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17475

On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Get a PiHole.
>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
>> 
>
> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
>
><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>

And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
you a false sense of security.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 49th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
'O you who turn the wheel and look to windward, Consider Phlebas,
            who was once handsome and tall as you.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17478

In comp.misc Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
>> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Get a PiHole.
>>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
>>
>> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
>> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
>> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
>> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
>> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
>>
>><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
> 
> And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
> company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
> PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
> six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
> you a false sense of security.

Seems wise enough if you then switch to a browser that really does
protect your privacy by design, giving up access to many popular
websites in the process.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17479

On 2019-02-18, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.misc Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2019-02-18, Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
>>> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Get a PiHole.
>>>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
>>>
>>> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
>>> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
>>> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.[9] Other parts
>>> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
>>> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"
>>>
>>><https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)>
>> 
>> And even if it were, the point is dumb, since Google isn't the only
>> company spying on you. Only four of the top blocked domains on my
>> PiHole (using the default blocklists) belong to Google. The other
>> six are other companies, so "stopping using Chrome" just gives
>> you a false sense of security.
>
> Seems wise enough if you then switch to a browser that really does
> protect your privacy by design, 

Precisely.


-- 
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 49th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17477

In comp.misc Pabst Blue Ribbon <pabst@blue.ribbon> wrote:
> tom <tom@0.0.0.0> wrote:
>> On 26 Jan 2019 10:54:20 GMT
>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Get a PiHole.
>> No, stop using Chrome and any other google products and services
> 
> Well, actually, it's not entirely Google product. It's based on Chromium,
> which is "an entirely free and open-source software project. The
> Google-authored portion is released under the BSD license.

The Google-authored portion is presumably a large majority, so it is
a Goole product. How well scrutinised the Open-Source code is by
people with an eye to privacy, is something that I'd like to know.

> Other parts
> are subject to a variety of licenses, including MIT, LGPL, Ms-PL, and an
> MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license.[10]"

Like most other software that deals with lots of different file
formats and protocols.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17347

On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
> blockers.

It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
the point of the change

> If the overhaul goes ahead, Adblock Plus and similar plugins that
> rely on basic filtering will, with some tweaks, still be able to
> function to some degree, unlike more ambitious extensions, such as
> uBlock Origin, which will be harder hit. The drafted changes will
> limit the capabilities available to extension developers, ostensibly
> for the sake of speed and safety. Chromium forms the central core of
> Google Chrome, and, soon, Microsoft Edge.

Actually, Adblock Plus was among the first to protest - because the new 
system would only allow 30000 filter list entries, which is not enough 
to even use Easylist

> The webRequest API allows browser extensions, like uBlock Origin, to
> intercept network requests, so they can be blocked, modified, or
> redirected. This can cause delays in web page loading because Chrome
> has to wait for the extension. In the future, webRequest will only be
> able to read network requests, not modify them.

Not only that - they can do some nasty stuff as well if you happen to 
install a malware extension. Which you might not even notice - in some 
cases benign extensions were sold off by their developers, and updated 
to include new "features" to manipulate web traffic, show ads, steal 
data, etc...

> "The declarativeNetRequest API provides better privacy to users
> because extensions can't actually read the network requests made on
> the user's behalf," Google's API documentation explains.

Actually they ARE telling the truth here... the old API had way too much 
rights. The adblocker issue is a side effect - an unfortunate one, but 
it was apparently not the main goal (otherwise, Google could have kicked 
them out of the app store ages ago)

Worst case, you can still use a proxy server to filter out the ads. And 
in your own LAN you should be running PiHole already anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17349

In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>> blockers.
> 
> It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
> the point of the change

The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a 
"grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an 
extension the right to use the API.

Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow" 
both to access the API.  But if some other extension, that does not 
need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of 
denying such access.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17350

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Rich wrote:
> In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
>>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>>> blockers.
>> 
>> It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
>> the point of the change
>
> The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a 
> "grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an 
> extension the right to use the API.
>

Yes, but then how can minitrue ensure that all people are properly
indoctr^h^h^h^h^h protected from malicious plugins?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxM68oACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFjhAgAr32Wi2dHlxJ6uV9kwPnCqfLlRadq3pYWkoFzfJox6xH7i9ZRT2DANjOh
WkeUZr8iCTaDmFgHVh2GMyfigxQTkLB19VcZt7f1HNIvS4YiRCq3lYc5iwqtdrHf
0zsx4Wc6GlbaySYahXvC0T9m3yN8K8yVJDVebMbVpFJmPlQg0RSP5Bv/uTyMZdf3
LcY4etUSDQgznyHL3xcMICJ9cG1gMOjyCQnYZNOhj7IF76fF02d58OMDK6WZKxEb
3Fw7iL96o6MQMVeZdzeuzYB3Xez/LCG4yE4PbE3nHJbLY961dh5/vmuPOgOzpUob
8bz+kkVc596RRNJ8WnUC9B2EK7Geow==
=ydkg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17353

On 2019-01-26, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
>>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>>> blockers.
>> 
>> It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
>> the point of the change
>
> The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a 
> "grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an 
> extension the right to use the API.
>
> Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow" 
> both to access the API.  But if some other extension, that does not 
> need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of 
> denying such access.

And of course that works *so* well in all the other cases when something
pops up. [User clicks 'Yes' without reading or understanding.]


-- 
Today is Boomtime, the 27th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3185
                      ~ Stercus accidit ~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17359

On 27.01.2019 12:09, Huge wrote:
>> Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow"
>> both to access the API.  But if some other extension, that does not
>> need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of
>> denying such access.
> 
> And of course that works *so* well in all the other cases when something
> pops up. [User clicks 'Yes' without reading or understanding.]

Indeed, the concept of "informed consent" simply doesn't work with endusers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17361

On 27.01.2019 00:15, Rich wrote:
> In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
>>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium
>>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad
>>> blockers.
>>
>> It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which is
>> the point of the change
> 
> The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a
> "grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant an
> extension the right to use the API.

Indeed, that would be the far better choice

> Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to "allow"
> both to access the API.  But if some other extension, that does not
> need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the choice of
> denying such access.

I wouldn't leave the decision with the users... I'd allow it depending 
on the category the extension was put in in the app store. That way, all 
extensions that want to use such elevated priviledges would be far more 
obvious, AND could be subject to more scrutiny without overloading the 
review system.

Leaving the decision just with the enduser means just another exercise 
in social engineering - you already got the user to want to install your 
extension anyway (manual extension installs were already disabled a 
while ago, weren't they?), so you just need a convincing argument to 
explain to the user why you want those permissions that Google is 
warning you could do bad things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17363

In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27.01.2019 00:15, Rich wrote:
>> In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 26.01.2019 05:56, !!Credit wrote:
>>>> Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium 
>>>> browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including ad 
>>>> blockers.
>>>
>>> It will also break data-stealing malware extensions though - which 
>>> is the point of the change
>> 
>> The solution there, however, is not to remove the API, but to add a 
>> "grant only" permissions system such that the end user has to grant 
>> an extension the right to use the API.
> 
> Indeed, that would be the far better choice
> 
>> Those installing uMatrix or uBlockOrigin will naturally want to 
>> "allow" both to access the API.  But if some other extension, that 
>> does not need such access, asks to be granted, then the user has the 
>> choice of denying such access.
> 
> I wouldn't leave the decision with the users...  I'd allow it 
> depending on the category the extension was put in in the app store.  
> That way, all extensions that want to use such elevated priviledges 
> would be far more obvious, AND could be subject to more scrutiny 
> without overloading the review system.

That is an interesting twist.  Prevents the current situation of 
blocking every extension due to a subset of bad extensions.

> Leaving the decision just with the enduser means just another 
> exercise in social engineering - you already got the user to want to 
> install your extension anyway (manual extension installs were already 
> disabled a while ago, weren't they?), so you just need a convincing 
> argument to explain to the user why you want those permissions that 
> Google is warning you could do bad things.

A fair point.  I was thinking from a standpoint of a technically 
competent, and appropriately security skeptical, end user.  But the 
same users whom years ago had 17 different IE tool bars simultaneously 
installed in IE6 would also simply authorize all the bad extensions to 
use the API.  And google is likely trying to protect those users from 
themselves.  Their protection at the moment is, unfortunately, the 
nuclear option, which does harm the technically competent and 
appropriately security skeptical users as part of the fallout.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17364

On 28.01.2019 12:26, Rich wrote:
>> Leaving the decision just with the enduser means just another
>> exercise in social engineering - you already got the user to want to
>> install your extension anyway (manual extension installs were already
>> disabled a while ago, weren't they?), so you just need a convincing
>> argument to explain to the user why you want those permissions that
>> Google is warning you could do bad things.
> 
> A fair point.  I was thinking from a standpoint of a technically
> competent, and appropriately security skeptical, end user.  But the
> same users whom years ago had 17 different IE tool bars simultaneously
> installed in IE6 would also simply authorize all the bad extensions to
> use the API.

Yep. I've been working in IT for over 20 years, mostly in enduser-facing 
areas. The only thing more dangerous than a user without a clue about 
computers is those who THINK they have a clue... ;-)

>  And google is likely trying to protect those users from
> themselves.  Their protection at the moment is, unfortunately, the
> nuclear option, which does harm the technically competent and
> appropriately security skeptical users as part of the fallout.

Nothing is set in stone yet. Google at least acknowledged the responses 
from the community, so there's still some hope. Maybe they'll just make 
it a setting in Chrome://flags for example. I'd be perfectly OK with that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17355

Op 26-01-19 om 17:58 schreef Juergen Nieveler:
> Worst case, you can still use a proxy server
Normal case, you use a good browser.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17360

On 27.01.2019 19:58, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
> Op 26-01-19 om 17:58 schreef Juergen Nieveler:
>> Worst case, you can still use a proxy server
> Normal case, you use a good browser.

If only there was one... Chrome and Edge will soon be frontends for the 
same engine, Opera too, Safari never was a good browser to begin with, 
and Firefox, while having the potential, pisses off users on a frequent 
basis by adding suspicious stuff without warning. Remember when they 
added advertising for "Mr Robot" by labeling it as "experiment"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17367

In comp.misc Juergen Nieveler <Juergen.Nieveler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27.01.2019 19:58, Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:
>> Op 26-01-19 om 17:58 schreef Juergen Nieveler:
>>> Worst case, you can still use a proxy server
>> Normal case, you use a good browser.
> 
> If only there was one... Chrome and Edge will soon be frontends for the 
> same engine, Opera too, Safari never was a good browser to begin with, 
> and Firefox, while having the potential, pisses off users on a frequent 
> basis by adding suspicious stuff without warning. Remember when they 
> added advertising for "Mr Robot" by labeling it as "experiment"?

I can think of a few "good" browsers, to my definition. The one I
choose is Dillo, and it doesn't need any ad-blocker extensions.

The problem is that the web in general is only designed for Chrome
and Firefox (with the latter possibly under threat as well given
its usage share), so the problem isn't finding good browsers, but
finding a good web.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web