Mozilla shouldn't copy Chrome's permission prompt for extensions
I don&#x27;t agree with the article at all.<p>Chrome is being completely honest with the user. If a youtube extension asks permission to &quot;read data from all websites&quot; you must ask yourself and the developer why it needs access to all websites and not just youtube.  A good extension must enumerate all the permissions it demands and give good reasons why it needs each of them. If an extension seeks new permissions, then consent must be sought from the user before update . This is obviously the correct approach(How it affects the extension developer&#x27;s revenue\user-adoption is unimportant). Chrome&#x27;s model is comparable to the security model of Android and iOS. Sure its not perfect, But its much better than the firefox model which is comparable to Windows 98.<p>Also i don&#x27;t understand the whole shifting of responsibility jibe. Does Mozilla review every extension and every update in their store? Do they accept responsibility if malicious code is downloaded from their store?<p>To conclude , i would like firefox&#x27;s stringent app review process <i>and</i> chrome&#x27;s fine-grained permissions and sandbox model.<p>Edit: I want to point out that this article is really looking after the interests of the developer, and not after the interests of the user.<p>Edit 2 : Also to add: Sandboxing is simply good security practice. Even if the author is not malicious, but in case an extension is exploited due to a bug, the damage done by a well-sandboxed extension is limited by the permissions granted. In firefox  such an exploit could hoover all your data, credit card info &amp; passwords from all your websites and data from you harddrive as well.