this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
750 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
11 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh for fucks sake, now the article itself has a misplaced mobile Wikipedia link and there's nowhere I can quickly see to put my copy paste about it.
copy paste for context:
Please, anyone who reads this, stop posting links to the mobile version of Wikipedia. It doesn’t switch automatically on PC, and I see it happen all the time. Just take the half a second to remove the “.m” from the beginning of the link, save everyone else from the pain of having to be surprised by it and taking the time to do it themselves.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/redirect-mobile-wikipedia/
General infosec tip: keep your browser add-ons to the absolute minimum you can live with. Add-ons are attack vectors. The more you have - the more at risk you are. And only install the ones you have a reason to trust.
Nah, browsers are sandboxed to absolute shit it is such a pain in the ass to make an extension just to do a phishing attack or to buy the ownership of one to introduce malicious code.
At most an extension with really broad permissions like read/write contents of any page (a fact that is made obvious upon installation) can replace a link to take you to a phishing page to harvest creds, but thanks to SSL and HTTPS it won't even work without fifty some odd warnings
You live by that and I'll live by the advice I've seen from infosec professionals that recommend as few add-ons as possible due to security concerns. But yes, browsers are getting more secure over time and that's good.
I'm an cybersec MSc and an infosec professional.
You obviously shouldn't install closed source or otherwise shady extensions from dodgy authors you don't know, but on the whole there is very little they can do that you should worry about.
Most "advice" comes from people who want to sell you something and the infosec industry is mostly a scam to drain B2B procurement budgets plus a few gay furry researchers at defcon who are incomprehensible savants and actual malware authors who do something, unless they just write crappy .NET junk.
Take for example an average """zero-day""" in 2024: https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/07/threat-actors-exploited-windows-0-day-for-more-than-a-year-before-microsoft-fixed-it/
This isn't even a vulnerability. It's just phishing that requires a user to have file extensions turned off, then download a dodgy as hell .PDF file that isn't one due to hidden extension, which then uses a milquetoast .hta trojan downloader that only works if one has IE enabled on Windows AND opens the .pdf in MS Edge to pull in reverse shell code via probably psexec of some sort.
There are so many steps one wonders why not just send a iamnotavirus.exe uac prompt and all to download, compile and run ransomware from vxunderground source code then and there.
Worrying about stuff like this in browser is akin to using a VPN on public WiFi to avoid MITM attacks, there's nothing wrong with it but there's basically nothing to actually worry about there.
Sorry if I'm nitpicky or confused here. You just said it's obvious that you shouldn't install closed sourced or otherwise shady extensions. Do you think a normie knows and cares if an extension is open source? And how do they know if an extension is "shady"? And what about legit extensions that get bought by shady people and turned into shady ones long after they've been installed and the user base trusts it?
I mean, couldn't an addon just read the password you put into a login field, or send in a request, and send it off to their servers?
If an add-on is modifying contents of pages it shouldn't or of the clipboard when it shouldn't, you would have to give it explicit permission at install time, i.e. "This extension can: Read and Modify Data on all sites you visit: Read and Modify contents of the clipboard."
Obviously a simple URL redirector for wikipedia requesting access to this data is absurd and would be an immediate red flag. The reason this very thing doesn't happen more often, is because frankly you'd have to be so computer illiterate to get to that stage that it is much easier to just phish you with basic Facebook profile info for much greater gains.
This is also the reason most "hacks" nowadays are either supply-side or phishing, shit is just too secure, no fun. We should bring back ActiveX.
To you, yes it should be. But it does require knowledge about how websites and browsers work that most people don't have. I'd be very surprised if 50% of people have any idea what those permissions actually do and what would be reasonable for different extensions to have.
But installing few extensions doesn't protect against it if the few extensions you install have scope and permissions to do bad things. It's all worded in plain English, at some point you gotta just not use computers anymore if you can't read.
Even if it's good advice for nan checking emails on IE6 on windows vista, it really shouldn't be necessary for a Lemmy user.
Of course having fewer extensions installed doesn't protect you from the ones that you have installed. But the fewer you have the smaller your attack surface is. And as a general tip, I think it's a good one, even on Lemmy. Because I'm not going to assume people's understanding of the web, browsers or permissions. And when it comes to the general population, a lack of understanding of an extension's permissions has very little to do with ones ability to read.
People not having the Wikipedia app baffles me. Sharing from there gives you reasonable links.
Why use an app when there's a web site? In case of Wikipedia I fail to see any functional benefit for an app.
The app has offline capabilities and to save articles on a named list. I use it as a reference when forgetting something or to save the list type article as a starting point when researching a software to use. Or just generally a reading material when on the go (yes, I find reading wikipedia articles entertaining)
Ok, offline functionality does make sense
Better reading experience overall. Compartmentalizing all my Wikipedia reading so as not to mix it with my other many open tabs. (Wikipedia app has tabs, too.) Sections are not collapsed by default. Easier to search on the page by default than in the browser.
I can probably go on it I made a more in-depth comparison after using the web version for a bit...
There's a Wikipedia app? I find that baffling.
Try it. It's great.
How much time do you spend on Wikipedia?
My man, I think I have over a hundred tabs and saved wikipedia articles alone that I always refer to when needed. The app works great for me
I would assume, and hope, it works really well for such usage. I only tend to end up on Wikipedia a couple of times a week, and 95% of that is on my desktop to have a quick look at something I won't be getting back to ever again.
Then the app is not for you. 😊
Time? Pff, no clue. But I look things up all the time and don't have time to finish articles the first time round, ever (two kids under six).
So it's great to have and get back to articles.
Yes that works, and you can also use something like URLCheck and just drop that path
What is that, an extension?
Yes it is https://f-droid.org/packages/com.trianguloy.urlchecker/