Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Rather than only doing it via technical means like permissions, I'd be more comfortable with auto-updating but with some kind of human quality assurance. Two systems that manage to pull that off from very different cultural/economic starting points are Apple's app store, and Debian's software repository.

The Google model of an auto-updating but un-QA'd app store doesn't work for me, because it combines two things I really don't see as compatible: 1) low-friction updates; and 2) installation of arbitrary un-reviewed code from the internet. If you're going to do #2, then I want the friction of downloading a new executable. I want to go to a website, see if the company still exists, read the release notes, generally be cautious about installation of random executables off the internet. But if you're going to do #1, then since the updates are supposed to apply without significant review by me, someone else has to be vetting what goes into the repository for at least minimal non-evilness standards.



This is what happens with AMO-hosted Firefox extensions. Whenever the extension author pushes out an update, it first has to go through review as described at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/policies/re...


> Rather than only doing it via technical means like permissions, I'd be more comfortable with auto-updating but with some kind of human quality assurance.

I agree on this.

The best solution for now would be a meta-extension that checks if you have compromised extensions installed and disable them.

The blacklist could be compiled based on the Store feedbacks (ratings dropping sharply? disabled.), a reporting system from the app, and also using automatic testing. For example run the extension on a sandboxed machine and check for requests to known shady domains.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: