[SuperShibe]

[flagged]

[Aurornis]

If a major adblocker used a bug or security vulnerability to work around restrictions, it would have been patched away immediately.

The uBlock team was never going to ship code that depended on a bug to work.

[r4indeer]

I fully agree. The original comment and the other replies to it are bewildering. There was nothing to gain here, yet people are throwing ad hominem attacks left and right.

[WD-42]

The exact wording was:

> But I don't know how to make an adblocker, so I decided to report the issue to Google in August 2023.

So why not go to someone that does know how to make a blocker? Nice snitch.

[4gotunameagain]

Well, in his defense it would have been patched immediately after the first adblocker used it, and he would have gotten nothing at all out of it.

Oh wait he got nothing at all anyway ;)

[m4rtink]

Would be quite different if they patched it and broke important extensions, possibly facing serieous outcry and bad publicity.

[deryilz]

I agree that would change things but I can't picture an open-source extension with millions of users pivoting to rely on something that's clearly a bug.

[userbinator]

At that point it's a feature, not a bug.

Having millions of users on your side is great ammunition.

[rollcat]

Important extensions like, dunno, uBlock Origin?

[eddythompson80]

Yeah, surely if chrome broke important extensions people will get mad and switch.

[devnullbrain]

That's what they already did.

[_feus]

Not really, this sort of fame farming is what makes candidates stand out in infosec interviews. A bug in Google systems is good for his future career.

[lucb1e]

The post says they had another bug with a large bounty in the same year, so it doesn't seem very useful for CV padding either

[romanovcode]

He was hoping to be a good boy and receive some cash from Google, as per article.