this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
51 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

77360 readers
2572 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

TL;Dr: Browser extensions are malware sleeper agents.

The systemic problem isn't just one malicious actor. It's that the security model incentivizes this behavior:

  1. Build something legitimate
  2. Pass review and gain trust signals (installs, reviews, verified badges)
  3. Collect large user base
  4. Weaponize via update
  5. Profit before detection

ShadyPanda proved this works. And now every sophisticated threat actor knows the playbook.

So, asking the past defenders of such a situation again, was XUL really worse or is it in effect the same?

Except XUL also allowed such customization that very rarely an extension would become as popular as they become now. Fragmentation as a defense.

(That refers to the discussions about Firefox dropping XUL in the past, killing many-many good extensions and ways to make them and alternative browsers built on XULRunner.)