undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCthulhu_5y ago0 comments

I don't mind automatic updates per se as long as they're thoroughly checked and vetted. I'm not convinced Android and the Chrome web store do ANY checking / vetting. I have more trust in Apple's stores.

Vetting could be better with a lot of companies as well; remember not so long ago when Windows Defender decided a critical system file was malware and broke a ton of systems?

Verification. Vetting. Gradual release. Automatically disable extensions if they changed ownership, or if there's suspicious activity on the account of the owner (e.g. new login in another country).

And they need to take a MUCH harder stance on malware. Right now they're not even acknowledging there's a problem, let alone acting on it.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

londons_explore5y ago· 2 in thread

For any extension that makes any money, the solution is a deposit scheme.

"Google will withhold $1 per user of your ad revenue forever. If your extension is found to contain malware, you forfeit all the $1's. Decisions on malware'y ness shall be made by XYZ malware researchers."

Allow a developer to get back their $1 when a user uninstalls the extension, or the developer stops making the extension. Also give the developer a certificate anytime showing how many $1's you hold of theirs (they could use that to get a loan from someone willing to trust them not to distribute malware).

PetahNZ5y ago

Not really a solution, just the minimum price a buyer would need to pay.

londons_explore5y ago

True. But even the most profitable malware won't want to forfeit hundreds of millions of dollars for a popular chrome extension.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse