|
|
|
|
|
by lxgr
459 days ago
|
|
If you have compromised browser extensions with script injection access, it's game over from a security perspective of any sites you visit. As a sidenote, that's actually one significant benefit of the "Manifest V3" Web Extension model – it's possible to grant these permissions on a per-site basis. (For example, you can allow uBlock Lite script injection access only on some sites, and limit it to declarative network request blocking otherwise.) |
|
When you go to say Google Docs, you're retrieving JS from _not_ your stuff. That JS (theoretically) can be altered to send back unencrypted data back to Google Docs.
The point they were making is that in this scenario you've self-hosted the JS and so it's not going to be altered to send back unencrypted data because you yourself aren't going to do that alteration.
---
Sure in both scenarios if you have an extension that uploads the content of the page it doesn't matter but there are more threat scenarios that apply to JS served from not your server than from your server.