Little Rat - a browser extension for monitoring other extensions

“Little Rat is an open-source extension designed for network traffic monitoring. Easily view, monitor, and block traffic from other Chrome extensions on a per-extension basis.”

I use it myself and I think it’s a very useful extension for everyone who uses more than just few extensions for different purposes and don’t fully trust them that they send no data as the developer promises, this extension can monitor the network and act as a firewall per-extension basis.

Download (Lite Version | Can’t monitor requests, only block): https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/little-rat/oiopkpalpilladnibecobcecijffaflf

Source Code and full version (recommended):
https://github.com/dnakov/little-rat/

(I’m not affliate with the developer in any way and just wanted to share this)

#privacy #browser #chromium #browserextensions @privacyguides @privacy

    • HughJanus@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      9 months ago

      I get it but when 70% of users all use the same browser (or fork thereof) I can’t blame them.

  • smeg@feddit.ukEnglish
    3·
    9 months ago

    Isn’t piling on browser extensions generally considered bad practice as it increases your attack surface (bad for security) and makes you more easy to fingerprint (bad for privacy)? This seems like a useful tool to use and then uninstall, but if you don’t fully trust something then you shouldn’t really be installing it at all!

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Isn’t piling on browser extensions generally considered bad practice as it increases your attack surface (bad for security) and makes you more easy to fingerprint (bad for privacy)?

      I read this very often, but I’m not really sure if it’s strictly true.
      An addon only increases your attack surface if it processes data sent by the website, and it only makes you easier to fingerprint if it does something to the website or it’s observable environment.

      A few examples:

      • Simple Tab Groups does not change anything a website could see, and other than title and favicon does not really process other parts of the website
      • Bitwarden: might be affected on both fronts because of autofill, and it reads the webpage to see if it contains a login form (to offer to save your new password or new account)
      • disable page visibility api, disable console clear: I think these are invisible to the website
      • firefox multi account containers: only adds fearures to the browser
      • libredirect: unless redirection of embeds is enabled, should not be visible
      • generic QR code maker addon: does not do anything with the website. Does a context menu entry for selected text, but that shouldn’t be visible by websites
      • redirect amp to html: invisible, redirection happens before loading the new page
      • tab session manager: same as STG above
      • new tab page addons
      • temporary containers
      • undo close tab
      • web archives

      So my point is that there’s a plenty of addons that don’t need to do anything with the website itself to be useful, and even if it does something with it, it does not necessarily make you more fingerprintable.

      That being said, it’s also important to mention that an addon could do something you don’t know about, so without asking others or yourself reading it’s code (it’s human readable, download the XPI file from the addon store and unzip it (it is a zip file actually)).

    • Voxel@infosec.exchangeOP
      0·
      9 months ago

      @smeg It seems like you miss the technical knowledge. Let me explain. Bad for security; this extension is so simply made there is basically nothing you could rly exploit and the only thing this extension is able to manage ur other extensions not more. Bad for privacy; it’s not since not every extension can be fingerprinting, only extensions which modify or do things related to the site you access. Websites don’t have by default access to the extensions you have installed.

      • smeg@feddit.ukEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Nothing is completely secure, I’d just rather not install an extension at all if I think it’s dodgy rather than trust another third party to monitor it.

        Websites don’t have by default access to the extensions you have installed

        This article implies otherwise, apparently there are multiple different ways to detect installed extensions.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          Websites don’t have by default access to the extensions you have installed

          This article implies otherwise, apparently there are multiple different ways to detect installed extensions.

          The article says:

          The Extensions Fingerprints site only works with Chromium browsers installing extensions from the Chrome Web Store. While this method will work with Microsoft Edge, it would need to be modified to use extension IDs from Microsoft’s extension store.

          This method does not work with Mozilla Firefox add-ons as Firefox extension IDs are unique for every browser instance.

          Firefox is not affected, and chrome is just being chrome. You should not expect privacy from a chrome browser.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
          2·
          9 months ago

          Nothing is completely secure, I’d just rather not install an extension at all if I think it’s dodgy rather than trust another third party to monitor it.

          Recently there was a post about Dark Reader doing interesting things.
          It’s always good to be able to check whether your addons behave well.

        • Voxel@infosec.exchangeOP
          0·
          9 months ago

          @smeg You basically missread the article and it basically says, what I already mentioned and the extension is completly opensource I even checked the code myself. 🤦‍♂️

          • smeg@feddit.ukEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            Lol, thanks but “trust me bro” doesn’t count as a security audit