5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I block via "I still don't care about cookies" extension

Hi ArcticFoxie,

Which version of "I still don't care about cookies" you use?

These ( https://www.crx4chrome.com/history/295651/ ) have Manifest V3 and I can't install them in 360Chrome v13 .

59 minutes ago, we3fan said:

Which version of "I still don't care about cookies" you use?

Version 1.1.1

Thanks.

When I try to install (drag&drop)  I still don't care about cookies 1.1.1  in 360Chrome v13, it says:
" Package is invalid. Details: The extension requires 'declarativeNetRequest' permission for the 'declarative_net_request' manifest key.'. "
Do I need to modify it before install?

Interesting.

Technically, I modify ALL of my extensions (disable any phone-home shenanigans, disable any auto-update, defuse any timebombs, customize GUI, modify descriptions, remove any "donate for beer fund" frat-mentality nags, et cetera).

But I don't recall any 'declarativeNetRequest' permission issue with "I Still Don't Care About Cookies".

My work-version manifest.json has the below, unsure if my home-version is identical or not.

 

<excerpt>
"permissions": [
    "tabs",
    "storage",
    "http://*/*",
    "https://*/*",
    "notifications",
    "webRequest",
    "webRequestBlocking",
    "webNavigation"
  ],
</excerpt>

I got it from https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/295651/   (edibdbjcniadpccecjdfdjjppcpchdlm-1.1.1-Crx4Chrome.com.crx, 470 KB)

manifest.json has this:
#
  "update_url": "https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx",
  "manifest_version": 3,
  "name": "__MSG_extensionName__",
  "description": "__MSG_extensionDescription__",
  "default_locale": "en",
  "version": "1.1.1",
  "icons": {
    "16": "icons/16.png",
    "48": "icons/48.png",
    "128": "icons/128.png"
  },
  "author": "OhMyGuus and Community (originally Daniel Kladnik)",
  "permissions": [
    "tabs",
    "storage",
    "notifications",
    "webRequest",
    "declarativeNetRequestWithHostAccess",
    "webNavigation",
    "scripting"
  ],
#

What it says under  manifest_version  for you?

56 minutes ago, we3fan said:

What it says under  manifest_version  for you?

2.

It appears that crx4chrome is updating all of their MV2 downloads to default to MV3.

You will need to extact the .crx, delete manifest.json (which is a direct copy of manifest_v3.json), rename manifest_v2.json to manifest.json, then go into Developer Mode on the Extensions page to pack the extension.

DO NOT "install" the re-packed .crx via Developer Mode.

Exit Developer Mode after you repack then install via drag-and-drop.

Developer Mode should only ever be used to "develop" extension, NEVER TO INSTALL THEM.

 

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Developer Mode should only ever be used to "develop" extension, NEVER TO INSTALL THEM.

Why sir ? 

Maybe more of a personal preference then a "never".  Yeah, yeah, "never say never".

Installing via Developer Mode breaks auto-update for those that think their extensions should auto-update (this is a pro to me, not a con, but I disable auto-update via other methods).

Some (not all) extension's "internals" reference their own "ID String" (the random sequence of 32 letters) and installing them in Dev Mode changes that "ID String" so features relying on that ID are now broken and the user isn't even aware that they are broken.

Though you will see the 32-letter ID String referenced in your error console.

Installing via Dev Mode I guess is one thing, but running the browser with the Extensions page *always* in Dev Mode enables the browser to throw nag screens and enables built-in "triggers" coded into the browser (especially Chrome Forks, unsure on Mozilla Forks).

I've also seen reports (though have not personally witnessed) that installing via Dev Mode can result in your browser DELETING YOUR EXTENSION without asking if you want it deleted - I think this occurs when you toggle out and then back into Dev Mode.

<OT>

I sometimes get lost @NotHereToPlayGames but am I right in that ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.1030 Redux is your very 'latest and greatest' ? Do you plan to continue to updates any further?

Thanks in advance.

Sal

<OT>

Edited December 16, 20232 yr by XPerceniol

1 hour ago, XPerceniol said:

am I right in that ArcticFoxie/NotHereToPlayGames -- 360Chrome v13.5.1030 Redux is your very 'latest and greatest' ? Do you plan to continue to updates any further?

Correct, 1030 Redux is the latest-and-greatest.

Yes, there will be updates to 1030 Redux.

All releases thus far (including the first 1030 Redux) use what upstream internally labels as "v9" menus.

All of these are being updated to "v13" menus.

8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

It appears that crx4chrome is updating all of their MV2 downloads to default to MV3.

So long as they keep up the older release links it's fine.

I have to make a backup of my extentions and perform a deep search into the chrome web store before they wipe out the whole MV2 content 

21 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Correct, 1030 Redux is the latest-and-greatest.

Yes, there will be updates to 1030 Redux.

All releases thus far (including the first 1030 Redux) use what upstream internally labels as "v9" menus.

All of these are being updated to "v13" menus.

I ran of likes or I would have simply done so but good to just reply and thank you for sharing your hard work on your project with us here. I'm excited to see what's in store for the future and your continued efforts

@NotHereToPlayGames Thanks ArcticFoxie

On 9/3/2023 at 7:59 AM, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But anything that intentionally uses http versus https, yeah, it should be flagged as suspicious at the very least.

I think it's important to understand exactly what risks http: allows that https: deals with.

First, there's nothing about https: that prevents the server from sending you malware, or receiving telemetry from you! Https: is not an anti-malware protocol.

What https: does do is two things:

1. It ensures you're connecting to the Web site you think you're connecting to
2. It protects data from eavesdropping or modification by third parties (men/hackers in the middle)

Those are both important functions, but if the Web site you're connecting to has bad intentions, https: won't protect you. At all. Conversely, there's no reason to think using http: makes the Web site any more suspicious than using https:.

Using http: is stupid, because it gives third-party hackers a way into your traffic, but if the Web site is the one trying to hack you, there's no advantage in using http:. Why would the Web site want third parties monkeying with their data, even if they have bad intentions?

Edited December 17, 20232 yr by Mathwiz
Pressed wrong key and posted before ready

On 9/3/2023 at 8:32 AM, Dixel said:

I never understood the purpose of "HTTPS Everywhere" (apart from leaking data to China).

Any somewhat modern browser can upgrade http to https.

Oh, come on. HTTPS Everywhere was developed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an American NGO. They have no connection to China.

The answer to your question is right there in your question itself! HTTPS Everywhere was developed about ten years ago, when http: was still somewhat common and most browsers didn't upgrade http: to https:.

EFF no longer supports HTTPS Everywhere or recommends its use. As you say, with "modern" browsers it's essentially redundant. But it may still be slightly useful for those of us using not-so-modern browsers, like 360Chrome.