Google’s campaign against ad blockers across its services just got more aggressive. According to a report by PC World, the company has made some alterations to its extension support on Google Chrome.

Google Chrome recently changed its extension support from the Manifest V2 framework to the new Manifest V3 framework. The browser policy changes will impact one of the most popular adblockers (arguably), uBlock Origin.

The transition to the Manifest V3 framework means extensions like uBlock Origin can’t use remotely hosted code. According to Google, it “presents security risks by allowing unreviewed code to be executed in extensions.” The new policy changes will only allow an extension to execute JavaScript as part of its package.

Over 30 million Google Chrome users use uBlock Origin, but the tool will be automatically disabled soon via an update. Google will let users enable the feature via the settings for a limited period before it’s completely scrapped. From this point, users will be forced to switch to another browser or choose another ad blocker.

Archive link

  • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Some isp’s have been detecting the second router and giving people shit for it.

    But I’m with you on that, I don’t trust the isp’s backdoored router-modem. Hard pass.

    • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Some isp’s have been detecting the second router and giving people shit for it.

      Giving people shit how? This is the first time I hear something like this. In my case, my ISP does not allow bridging a router, so I NAT mine instead, and it works just fine.

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, they can still tell that you’re Nat behind another router.

        But they don’t like it because it gives them less access to your network and more possibility for something to be wrong

        • socphoenix@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ve never had an isp complain about me using my own router in the US, is this just common in other countries or have I just been lucky?

          • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s a rarity afaik, I’ve only heard of one or two cases, but a concerning report to me personally.

            Though I’m Canadian so it’ll be a few years before it filters here (assuming it catches on)

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          How would they do that? Maybe by looking at ports? You could just lie and say you only have one device.

          • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            The moment they see their ONT is registering only 1 device (the router) it’s clear everything is being routed via that.

            I have never not had a router natted behind my modem. They can see the amount of packets and data I use over the ISP, but that’s about it. On top of that my LANs and VLANs are all VPNd through NordVPN before anything hits the WAN and all DNS traffic goes though my Adguard Home and Quad9 as well, so there’s that.

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                They might be able to see if the data indicates the network has been though NAT (network address translation) twice, but that would look just like someone who has plugged their own wifi box into the modem

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  But how would they prove that? I have high doubt. Also what benefit would it give them? It seems like a lot of work and uncertainty for little reward.

                  • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I can’t answer that. I guess you would need to be in their place to understand that backwards way of thinking.

              • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                I trust any company that’s not in my country more than any local company. Or I should say, I distrust local companies more.

        • XTL
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t NAT. Just bump in the wire firewall plus local DNS server.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            There’s always NAT. You get one IP address, your router/wifi shares the network using NAT

            But ISPs aren’t looking for NAT, since everyone with wifi is using it