![]() So it isn't something that can, at the moment, at least technically, just be turned off." "But it is still technically possible to execute remote code, and that is kind of an inherent limitation of the web. "I'm somewhat bullish in that the extension ecosystem in Manifest v3 – due to the inherent platform changes that limit remotely hosted code, as well as policy changes that prohibit it – I feel that it is better than average in that respect than the broader software ecosystem," he said. He said he became aware of it mainly when developers – mostly well-intentioned – reported being subject to some enforcement action they hadn't anticipated.īut in general, Vincent said, he believes supply chain attacks have become more common. "And work hard to make it as unobvious as possible."Īsked whether this particular sort of attack is increasing, Vincent said he had limited visibility into the issue when he was at Google as he did not work on the abuse team. "The tools available to the stores to take action against and detect these patterns of abuse are relatively limited, because you have to recognize that the thing is even happening in the first place," he explained. Except, rather than as a dependency being compromised, it is an explicit exchange. It is to some extent a variation on supply chain attacks. In an interview with The Register, Vincent said, "This is a complicated issue because there are limited tools available for stores to be able to take action against malicious actors, particularly in the case of third party libraries being integrated. That's because if the extension is flagged as malware and removed from the Chrome Web Store, it's the developer whose account will be suspended – not the data slurper. When done as a partnership deal, Vincent explains, the speculator shifts the risk onto the developer. Vincent said the people sending these messages typically want the extension to be altered to change the user's default search provider using the Settings Overrides API or to expose a search box in the extension interface, or to have the extension add a search box to websites. Sebastian blamed Google and Mozilla for failing to support legitimate revenue-generating options for extension developers. These speculators may want to purchase an existing extension and its installed base of users, or partner with the extension developer to add third-party functionality.ĭeveloper Armin Sebastian wrote about receiving such messages back in 2019, and cited offers he'd received to integrate e-commerce affiliate commission code or search monetization. Extension developers often get approached by entities and individuals whose trustworthiness is much less certain. The "I don't care about cookies" deal involved code sold to a known commercial company. Chrome's HTTPS padlock heads to Google Graveyard.YouTube's 'Ad blockers not allowed' pop-up scares the bejesus out of netizens.Mozilla so sorry for intrusive Firefox VPN popup ad.The Gen Digital Global Privacy Statement describes various ways in which the business uses data and the conditions under which it shares data with partners. We can only assume the error was introduced by one of our fellow fleshbags.Gen Digital did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Walters' case, ironically, is listed in the Gwinnett Courts Portal as Walters VS OpenAL LLC (23-A-04860-2). We have asked two Georgia-based Mark Walters for comment. This part, in this Reg scribe's humble opinion, might be a problem. ![]() Internet defamation law firm RM Warner Law opines that "it is the responsibility of slander and libel plaintiffs to prove that the statements under review are about them." The complaint claimed "ChatGPT's allegations concerning Walters were false and malicious, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure Walters' reputation and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule." According to the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, in Georgia, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must "prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements." We have asked experts in defamation for comment. ![]() As for the amount of damages, the complaint says these will be determined at trial, if the case actually gets there. Walters is looking for damages and lawyers' fees. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |