Hacker News Reader

Comment by Etheryte | Hacker News Reader

This doesn't pass any kind of a sniff test. The file size doesn't need to be small for Github, they don't care. Likewise it doesn't need to be small for the extension since the extension is stored locally, not loaded over the network. Take your malware elsewhere.

View on HN

>The file size doesn't need to be small for Github, they don't care. Likewise it doesn't need to be small for the extension since the extension is stored locally, not loaded over the network. Take your malware elsewhere.

It’s minified like this because it was being distributed to 100,000’s of users in the crx state it came from, as a courtesy to not waste their data / HDD space. Google was fine with it in this state for 5 years. Take your slander elsewhere.

I was transparent about the origins of where this code came from. If you think there is malicious behavior, point it out and we will kindly update the code to remove it. The reference to the extensions old domain has been removed now.

There is no reason for anyone to touch any of this with a ten foot pole, let alone do free work for you. Laughable.

Typically the burden of proof would be on the one making the assertion that something is malicious, but I see mere accusations and paranoia is good enough for some people even with the code right in front of them. Two unused string constants doesn't mean much.

It very much does when someone else already pointed out that the same code has previously been show to include malware.

>that the same code has previously been show to include malware.

What was pointed out was, that the extension got compromised at our thereafter December 2024. The version I base this on was sourced from the Web Store August 2024 when it was a legit Chrome and Firefox extension with active 300,000+ users and existed since since 2020. Just because an extension gets compromised you think that retroactively means the old versions are unsafe too and now the code is haunted?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com