Hubbry Logo
Browser extensionBrowser extensionMain
Open search
Browser extension
Community hub
Browser extension
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Browser extension
Browser extension
Browser extension
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A browser extension is a software module for customizing a web browser. Browsers typically allow users to install a variety of extensions, including user interface modifications, cookie management, ad blocking, and the custom scripting and styling of web pages.[1]

Browser plug-ins are a different type of module and no longer supported by the major browsers.[2][3] One difference is that extensions are distributed as source code, while plug-ins are executables (i.e. object code).[2] The most popular browser, Google Chrome,[4] has over 100,000 extensions available[5] but stopped supporting plug-ins in 2020.[6]

History

[edit]

Internet Explorer was the first major browser to support extensions, with the release of version 4 in 1997.[7] Firefox has supported extensions since its launch in 2004. Opera and Chrome began supporting extensions in 2009,[8] and Safari did so the following year. Microsoft Edge added extension support in 2016.[9]

API conformity

[edit]

In 2015, a community group formed under the W3C to create a single standard application programming interface (API) for browser extensions.[10] While this particular work did not reach fruition,[11] every major browser now has the same or very similar API due to the popularity of Google Chrome.[4][12]

Chrome was the first browser with an extension API based solely on HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. Beta testing for this capability began in 2009,[13][14] and the following year Google opened the Chrome Web Store. As of June 2012, there were 750 million total installations of extensions and other content hosted on the store.[15] In the same year, Chrome overtook Internet Explorer as the world's most popular browser,[16] and its usage share reached 60% in 2018.[17]

Because of Chrome's success, Microsoft created a very similar extension API for its Edge browser, with the goal of making it easy for Chrome extension developers to port their work to Edge.[18] But after three years Edge still had a disappointingly small market share, so Microsoft rebuilt it as a Chromium-based browser.[19][20] (Chromium is Google's open-source project that serves as the functional core of Chrome and many other browsers.) Now that Edge has the same API as Chrome, extensions can be installed directly from the Chrome Web Store.[21]

In 2015, Mozilla announced that the long-standing XUL and XPCOM extension capabilities of Firefox would be replaced with a less-permissive API very similar to Chrome's.[22] This change was enacted in 2017.[23][24] Firefox extensions are now largely compatible with their Chrome counterparts.[25]

Apple was the last major exception to this trend, but support for extensions conforming to the Chrome API was added to Safari for macOS in 2020.[26] Extensions were later enabled in the iOS version for the first time.[27]

In 2021, these browser vendors formed a new W3C community group, called WebExtensions, to "specify a model, permissions, and a common core of APIs".[28] However, Google joined this during its overhaul of Chrome's extension API, known as Manifest V3, which greatly reduces the capability of ad blockers and privacy-related extensions.[29][30][31] Thus the WebExtensions group is viewed by some extension developers as nothing more than Google imposing its Manifest V3 design.[32][33][34]

Unwanted behavior

[edit]

Browser extensions typically have access to sensitive data, such as browsing history, and they have the ability to alter some browser settings, add user interface items, or replace website content.[35][36] As a result, there have been instances of malware, so users need to be cautious about what extensions they install.[37][38][39][40]

There have also been cases of applications installing browser extensions without the user's knowledge, making it hard for the user to uninstall the unwanted extension.[41]

Some Google Chrome extension developers have sold their extensions to third-parties who then incorporated adware.[42][43] In 2014, Google removed two such extensions from the Chrome Web Store after many users complained about unwanted pop-up ads.[44] The following year, Google acknowledged that about five percent of visits to its own websites had been altered by extensions with adware.[45][46][47]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Browser extension

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A browser extension, also known as an add-on or plug-in, is a compact software module that integrates with a to extend its core functionality by accessing browser-specific application programming interfaces (APIs), typically constructed using standard web technologies including , CSS, and . These extensions enable users to customize their browsing experience with specialized features such as ad and tracker blocking, password management, , or workflow automation, and are distributed primarily through official stores like the or Add-ons, where over 111,000 extensions are available for Chromium-based browsers as of 2025. Developed under standards like the cross-browser WebExtensions API, which promotes compatibility across platforms including , Mozilla Firefox, , and others, browser extensions operate within the browser's sandboxed environment but often require permissions to read, modify, or interact with web content, tabs, and user data. This architecture allows for rapid innovation in user productivity and personalization—evident in widely adopted tools for tasks like grammar checking or —but also amplifies inherent risks due to the extensions' elevated privileges, which can encompass monitoring browsing , injecting scripts into pages, or handling sensitive inputs. Despite their utility, browser extensions have drawn scrutiny for vulnerabilities and erosions, with empirical analyses revealing thousands actively extracting sensitive from web pages or enabling supply-chain attacks through malicious code disguised in seemingly benign add-ons. In enterprise contexts, where over 99% of users install extensions granting broad access to , passwords, and traffic, these components represent a broad exacerbated by lax vetting in extension stores and user tendencies toward unverified installations, prompting recommendations for permission audits and runtime monitoring to mitigate or persistence. Such issues underscore the causal trade-off between extensibility and containment, where empirical breaches trace back to over-permissive APIs rather than isolated user errors, influencing browser vendors to enhance review processes and default restrictions in recent updates.

History

Early origins and userscripts

The concept of browser extensions originated in grassroots efforts to customize web browsing through userscripts, small programs that users could inject to alter webpage behavior, structure, or content on-the-fly without altering the underlying browser code. These scripts addressed limitations in early browsers, such as inflexible interfaces and lack of native personalization options, by enabling modifications like hiding elements, automating interactions, or adding features directly within the (DOM). A pivotal development occurred with the release of Greasemonkey on December 6, 2004, created by Aaron Boodman as a Firefox extension that managed and executed userscripts safely in isolated contexts. Greasemonkey's open-source nature facilitated rapid community contributions, with users sharing scripts via emerging repositories to fix annoyances like intrusive ads or to enhance usability on sites with poor design, thereby validating the demand for programmable browser augmentation. By 2005, thousands of such scripts proliferated, underscoring how user-driven innovation bypassed browser vendors' initial reluctance toward extensibility amid concerns over security and performance. Parallel experiments emerged in other browsers; Opera introduced its widget system with version 9 on June 20, 2006, permitting users to create and run compact, web-integrated applications that extended browsing capabilities beyond tabs, such as desktop notifications or content aggregators. These pre-extension tools, powered by open-source collaboration, empirically demonstrated the causal benefits of modularity—improved user efficiency and adaptation to evolving web needs—paving the way for standardized frameworks while highlighting the tension between customization freedom and vendor control over browser ecosystems.

Rise with major browsers

Google introduced an extensions platform for Chrome in December 2009, releasing it in beta alongside a gallery of more than 300 extensions, which enabled developers to enhance browser functionality through JavaScript-based modifications. This development marked a strategic move to differentiate Chrome in a market dominated by and , where extensibility had already proven popular among power users. By centralizing extension discovery and installation, Chrome addressed user demands for customization, fostering rapid developer engagement and contributing to the browser's competitive edge. The launch of the in December 2010 further institutionalized extensions by providing a unified marketplace for extensions, themes, and apps, integrated seamlessly with Google's authentication and distribution infrastructure. This ecosystem lock-in accelerated adoption, as extensions became a key selling point for Chrome's minimalist design and performance focus. Empirical evidence of growth emerged quickly: by mid-2011, security analyses examined over 1,100 popular Chrome extensions, reflecting a surge from the initial hundreds and underscoring user-driven demand for features like and productivity tools that propelled Chrome's from under 5% in 2009 to over 20% by late 2011. In response to Chrome's dominance, began transitioning from its proprietary XUL-based add-on system to WebExtensions in August 2015, prioritizing compatibility with Chrome to ease porting and sustain developer interest amid declining Firefox usage. WebExtensions debuted in 45 on March 8, 2016, offering cross-browser portability while preserving 's emphasis on privacy and openness. This highlighted intensifying , as browsers vied for loyalty through extensible architectures, with Chrome's early lead pressuring rivals to standardize for broader compatibility and innovation.

Standardization and Manifest versions

Chrome transitioned browser extensions from Manifest Version 1 to Version 2 between 2012 and 2014, mandating the latter for new submissions by mid-2013 while providing for existing V1 extensions via a minimum Chrome version specification in the manifest. Manifest V2 introduced explicit permissions in the manifest.json file, requiring developers to declare specific hosts, APIs, and resources upfront rather than relying on implicit or runtime grants, which improved by enabling user review and browser auditing of access scopes before installation. It also added persistent background pages, allowing extensions to maintain long-running scripts for tasks like event monitoring and data processing independent of user interactions with tabs. This shift addressed limitations in V1, such as unstructured access models that risked overreach, while preserving developer flexibility for advanced features like network request interception via APIs such as chrome.webRequest, which balanced extensibility against emerging threats from malicious extensions. The changes reduced risks by enforcing declarative configurations, though they still permitted broad capabilities that necessitated ongoing mitigations like store vetting. Post-2015, the WebExtensions API emerged as a cross-browser standard, initially developed by Mozilla for Firefox to mirror Chrome's model and facilitate porting without major rewrites. Announced in August 2015 and experimentally available in Firefox Nightly, it gained stable support in Firefox 45 (March 2016) for core APIs and full maturity by Firefox 57 (November 2017), enabling extensions to run across Chrome, Firefox, and later Edge with minimal adjustments via namespace polyfills like browser.* over chrome.*. Microsoft's Edge adopted WebExtensions compatibility upon its Chromium engine switch in January 2020, further diminishing vendor-specific silos. Standardization via WebExtensions curtailed fragmentation by converging on a shared surface, easing developer burdens and user expectations for consistent behavior, yet it inherited V2's trade-offs: potent interception tools enhanced utility for legitimate uses like but amplified potential for abuse, prompting iterative security refinements without curtailing core innovation.

Technical Architecture

Core components

Browser extensions employ a modular that separates concerns for web page interaction, persistent background processing, and elements, enabling efficient handling of browser events and user-initiated actions without disrupting the core browsing experience. This design facilitates causal chains where specific components trigger responses to defined events, such as page loads or user clicks, while maintaining isolation from the host browser's primary processes. At the core is the manifest.json file, a required JSON configuration that declares the extension's metadata, including its name, version number, and entry points such as popup interfaces or options pages. This file registers key components like content scripts and background workers, ensuring the browser loads them appropriately upon extension activation. For instance, the "action" or "browser_action" key defines toolbar icons and associated HTML popup files for quick user access; in Manifest V3, extensions can implement custom context menu items for the toolbar (action) icon using the chrome.contextMenus API with the "action" context type, which triggers on right-click and replaces the Manifest V2 "browser_action" context, while left-clicks use "default_popup" in the manifest's "action" key to open a popup or trigger chrome.action.onClicked if omitted. For example, in the service worker:

javascript

chrome.contextMenus.create({ id: "myItem", title: "Example Item", contexts: ["action"] });

chrome.contextMenus.create({ id: "myItem", title: "Example Item", contexts: ["action"] });

while "options_ui" specifies persistent settings pages. Extensions utilize distinct script types for targeted functionality: content scripts, which are JavaScript modules injected into matched web pages to read or modify the (DOM) and communicate findings back to the extension core; and background scripts or service workers, which manage event-driven logic outside any specific tab, such as listening for browser-wide events like tab closures or alarms. In modern Manifest V3 implementations, background persistence shifted to event-based service workers to optimize resource usage, terminating when idle rather than running continuously. These scripts interact via , preserving modularity. Built on standard web technologies—HTML for structure, CSS for styling, and for logic—extensions leverage familiar development tools for rapid iteration, akin to web app creation. However, this foundation inherits web-specific vulnerabilities, such as (XSS) risks in injected content or DOM manipulations, necessitating careful code practices to avoid unintended data exposure or execution flaws.

APIs and permissions model

Browser extensions rely on standardized APIs, primarily the WebExtensions API, to interact with browser features such as tab management, data storage, and network traffic observation. These APIs, implemented across major browsers including Chrome and , enable extensions to extend core functionality without direct access to the browser's underlying code. For instance, the chrome.tabs API provides methods to query open tabs, create new ones, update their properties, or capture their content, allowing extensions to automate workflows like tab organization or synchronization. Similarly, the chrome.storage API offers persistent and session-based storage options for extension-specific data, supporting key-value pairs with synchronization across devices via cloud services when permitted. The chrome.webRequest API facilitates monitoring and modification of network requests, including event listeners for request lifecycle stages, though its blocking capabilities have been restricted in newer manifest versions to enhance performance and security. The permissions model enforces a granular, user-consent-based approach to API access, requiring extensions to declare capabilities in the manifest.json file's permissions array, such as "tabs", "storage", or "webRequest". Upon installation, browsers display these requests to users, who must explicitly approve them, embodying a least-privilege that limits potential overreach compared to unrestricted native applications. Host permissions, like "<all_urls>" or specific origin patterns (e.g., "[https](/page/HTTPS)://example.com/*"), further scope access to , enabling features such as script injection or request interception while prompting warnings for broad grants. This contrasts sharply with web applications, which remain confined to sandboxed origins without privileges for browser-wide operations or cross-origin modifications, necessitating extension-specific elevations that undergo store review processes to verify legitimacy. Optional permissions allow runtime requests post-installation via the permissions , providing flexibility for dynamic features while maintaining user oversight, as denials revoke associated access immediately. This model prioritizes over default broad access, reducing unintended data exposure, though it relies on users evaluating permission scopes during prompts— a process informed by browser-provided descriptions and warnings for sensitive APIs like those involving or geolocation. In Manifest V3, adopted widely since 2021, permissions integrate with service workers for background execution, further refining the balance by deprecating persistent scripts in favor of event-driven models that align calls with explicit needs.

Cross-browser compatibility

The WebExtensions , developed by to facilitate cross-browser extension development, emerged as a in 2015, drawing from 's extension model to enable compatibility across , Chrome, and later Edge. This allows developers to build extensions using , , and CSS with shared primitives for features like content scripts, background pages, and permissions, minimizing the need for browser-specific code. Chromium-based browsers, including Chrome since its inception and Edge following its 2020 shift to the Chromium engine, natively support these , while implemented full Promise-based asynchronous support from early versions. Safari joined this ecosystem with version 14 in September 2020, adopting WebExtensions following Apple's announcement at WWDC 2020, thereby extending compatibility to Apple's platforms for and 14. However, 's implementation imposes stricter isolation through sandboxed execution environments for extension components, driven by Apple's emphasis on and , which isolates logic, UI elements, and content interactions more rigorously than in Chrome or . This requires developers to adapt for limitations such as restricted inter-component communication and additional approval processes via Apple's distribution model, contrasting with the open web stores of competitors. Manifest V3, introduced by in Chrome 88 in January 2021 to enhance via service workers replacing persistent backgrounds, has been adopted with variations across browsers, promoting further unification but introducing frictions. and support V3 but diverge in areas like service worker persistence and declarative net request APIs, where retains more flexibility for blocking rules to preserve ad-blocker efficacy, while aligns closer to Chrome but enforces extra gates. These differences necessitate conditional paths or polyfills, yet the overall framework yields empirical efficiencies, with developers reporting streamlined porting for V3-compliant extensions across the four major browsers, reducing codebase fragmentation despite residual API gaps like incomplete support in older Chrome versions pre-121. Such standardization fosters a more efficient extension market by lowering barriers to multi-browser deployment, though full parity remains elusive due to vendor-specific priorities.

Functionality and Types

Productivity enhancements

Browser extensions for productivity augment routine web interactions by automating form completion, curbing distractions, and organizing flows, thereby enabling users to allocate cognitive resources toward substantive tasks rather than navigational friction. Tools in this category address inherent browser limitations, such as unfiltered ad delivery or manual credential handling, which stem from trade-offs favoring publisher over user throughput. By permitting selective overrides, these extensions align interfaces with individual workflows, fostering efficiency without mandating systemic redesigns. Ad-blocking extensions exemplify this by filtering non-essential content, reducing visual clutter and accelerating page rendering. uBlock Origin, first released on June 23, 2014, employs lightweight rulesets to block trackers and ads, yielding faster load times and diminished interruptions during content consumption. Empirical analysis reveals that such blockers enhance engagement metrics, with users viewing more pages and sustaining longer productive sessions compared to unblocked browsing, as intrusive elements otherwise inflate dwell time on irrelevant material. Password managers streamline , a frequent bottleneck in multi-site . Bitwarden's browser extension autofills credentials across domains while generating unique, complex passwords, curtailing the manual recall or reset cycles that average 11 hours annually per employee in unmanaged environments. This not only expedites logins but also enforces stronger postures without proportional user effort, converting a vulnerability-prone chore into seamless access. Task capture and tab organization further refine daily utility. The Todoist extension, compatible with major browsers since its integration rollout, allows one-click addition of web pages or clippings to task lists, bridging browsing with without context switches. Complementarily, tab managers like Toby consolidate open tabs into searchable sessions, mitigating overload from parallel workflows; its developers report average weekly savings of up to 8 hours per user through reduced search friction and session persistence. These mechanisms counteract default browser tendencies toward linear, ad-interrupted progression, empowering customized efficiency hierarchies grounded in personal task demands.

Developer and debugging tools

Browser extensions dedicated to developer and debugging tools equip web developers with capabilities to inspect, analyze, and optimize code execution directly within the browser, streamlining the identification of issues in dynamic web applications. These tools integrate seamlessly with browser developer consoles, offering extensions to built-in features like Chrome DevTools, and focus on framework-specific inspections, performance profiling, and request interception without requiring server-side modifications. By enabling granular control over component states, network traffic, and rendering behaviors, they reduce cycles from hours to minutes, as developers can simulate and trace issues in live environments. Prominent examples include React Developer Tools, maintained by Meta since its initial release in 2015, which permits examination of React component trees, editing of props and hooks in real-time, and performance recording to pinpoint re-render inefficiencies. Similarly, Google's extension, launched in 2016 as an open-source auditor, evaluates web pages across metrics such as loading speed, compliance, and adherence to best practices, generating actionable reports that guide optimizations like resource minimization and improvements. For API-centric debugging, Postman Interceptor, introduced by Postman in 2014, captures browser-initiated requests and , forwarding them to the Postman client for replay and validation, which proves essential in verifying endpoint behaviors during frontend-backend integration. Such extensions drive software innovation by democratizing advanced , allowing solo developers and small teams to achieve enterprise-level efficiency without proprietary IDE dependencies; for instance, framework-specific tools like React Developer Tools have become staples, with developers reporting frequent use for prop tracing and bottleneck analysis in production-like settings. Surveys indicate broad reliance on browser-based aids, with over 70% of IT professionals incorporating extensions into workflows, underscoring their role in sustaining high-velocity development amid complex ecosystems. This accessibility lowers entry barriers for new talent, empirically correlating with accelerated feature rollouts and reduced bug persistence rates in web projects, as real-time feedback loops minimize trial-and-error iterations inherent to abstracted methods.

Security and privacy-focused extensions

Security and privacy-focused browser extensions aim to mitigate web-based threats by enforcing secure connections, blocking potentially harmful scripts, and limiting tracking mechanisms, though their necessity has diminished with built-in browser protections such as Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection introduced in 2018 and Chrome's phased elimination of third-party cookies by late 2024. These tools provide users with granular control over browser behavior, but empirical analyses indicate that their gains often come with trade-offs, including increased page load times of up to 20-30% in some cases, and hinges on proper user setup rather than default operation. One prominent example, , developed by the (EFF), automatically redirected HTTP traffic to where supported, reducing man-in-the-middle vulnerabilities; however, EFF deprecated the extension in 2021 as major browsers like Chrome and began enforcing by default for supported sites, rendering it redundant by 2025. , an open-source extension available for and Chrome, preemptively blocks , Flash, and other active content unless explicitly allowed per site, thereby preventing drive-by downloads and malicious ad exploits, with studies confirming its role in narrowing the against script-based threats. Privacy Badger, another EFF creation, employs heuristic learning to detect and block third-party trackers that engage in cross-site fingerprinting or cookie-based surveillance, significantly curtailing data collection by advertising networks without requiring manual lists, though it opts users out of mechanisms like Google's to avoid behavioral profiling. VPN proxy extensions, such as ExpressVPN's for Chrome and , spoof geolocation via APIs, enforce upgrades, and block WebRTC leaks while remotely controlling full VPN apps, offering location-based privacy enhancements but limited to browser traffic routing rather than system-wide encryption. Overall, while these extensions demonstrably reduce tracking exposure—user evaluations show heightened awareness and fewer observed trackers post-installation—their incremental benefits over native features like Safari's Intelligent Tracking Prevention, updated in 2024, underscore a shift toward integrated browser defenses over addon dependency.

Security and Privacy Risks

Common vulnerabilities

Browser extensions are susceptible to supply-chain attacks, where adversaries compromise developer accounts or update mechanisms to inject malicious code into legitimate extensions distributed through official web stores. In December 2024, a attack on Cyberhaven's developer team allowed attackers to upload tampered versions of the extension to the , enabling theft of access tokens from affected users. Similar incidents compromised at least 35 Chrome extensions by late 2024, exposing over 2.6 million users to data theft through unauthorized code updates. These attacks exploit the trust in verified stores, allowing widespread propagation without user detection. Excessive permissions granted to extensions often enable unauthorized , as many request broad access to sensitive resources like cookies, browsing history, and beyond their core functions. A 2025 enterprise security report found that 53% of extensions installed by enterprise users possess high or critical permission scopes, facilitating potential extraction of credentials and session . Empirical analysis of over 2,400 extensions revealed vulnerabilities in permission handling that threaten web session integrity, including unintended leaks. Malicious extensions frequently incorporate credential-harvesting capabilities, injecting scripts to capture details or session tokens. In 2025, the BlackStink campaign deployed stealthy Chrome extensions targeting Latin American banks, using obfuscated to steal banking credentials via form grabbing and keylogging. Researchers identified polymorphic extensions mimicking legitimate add-ons, which evaded detection to hijack accounts across Chrome, Edge, and Brave browsers, affecting thousands of users. A July 2025 campaign leveraged 18 extensions in Chrome and Edge stores to track user behavior and harvest data from millions, demonstrating persistent risks in vetted ecosystems.

Data handling and permissions abuse

Browser extensions often require broad permissions, such as access to "read and change all your data on all websites," to enable core functionalities like content modification or data synchronization. These permissions, declared in the extension's , grant programmatic access to site-specific data including HTTP , local storage, and DOM elements, which can be exploited for unauthorized extraction or injection of malicious payloads. For instance, malicious actors have used such permissions to steal session , enabling without re-authentication, as demonstrated in analyses of cookie-theft techniques where extensions directly query browser APIs like chrome..getAll. In 2025, security audits uncovered numerous cases of permissions abuse in the , including over 130 extensions that hijacked Web sessions by injecting scripts and exfiltrating chat after users granted broad host permissions. Similarly, campaigns involving 18 extensions tracked user across millions of installs, leveraging "activeTab" and storage permissions to log and transmit histories to remote servers. These incidents highlight how seemingly benign requests for site access facilitate cookie theft and credential harvesting, often evading initial store reviews through obfuscated code or gradual permission escalation. Privacy leaks frequently occur through background synchronization mechanisms or integrations with third-party APIs, where extensions defer data uploads until connectivity resumes, potentially bypassing user-visible network activity. For example, extensions have been found transmitting API keys, browsing domains, and machine identifiers over unencrypted HTTP channels to services, exposing data to interception despite mandates for primary content. Such practices contrast with legitimate uses, like cross-device syncing in productivity tools, where permissions enable seamless functionality but introduce risks if third-party endpoints lack encryption or auditability. While these abuses underscore the need for granular permission models, from extension ecosystems indicates that user-driven consent—through explicit review of requested hosts and APIs—outweighs blanket prohibitions, as overly restrictive policies correlate with reduced developer participation and in features like tools. Users bear primary responsibility for evaluating extension manifests and revoking unnecessary permissions via browser settings, fostering a market where high-risk actors are sidelined by informed adoption rather than regulatory overreach.

Mitigation strategies

While browser vendors implement review processes for extension stores, such as the Chrome Web Store's combination of automated scanning and manual audits to detect and policy violations, these measures are imperfect, with research indicating that up to 86% of infringing extensions closely resemble previously approved ones, allowing evasion through minor code similarities, and malicious updates can occur post-approval despite ongoing monitoring. Users should therefore prioritize independent verification over sole reliance on store vetting, including manual inspection of extension manifests for excessive permissions like broad access to tabs or storage, which can enable if abused. To specifically protect against data harvesting by malicious browser extensions, users can adopt several practical measures. Install extensions only from official stores, such as the Chrome Web Store or Firefox Add-ons, to leverage built-in vetting processes that reduce the risk of malicious code distribution. Carefully review requested permissions before granting access, denying broad scopes like full access to all websites or sensitive data such as cookies and browsing history unless absolutely necessary for the extension's function. Regularly audit installed extensions by reviewing their permissions in browser settings and removing or disabling unnecessary ones to minimize potential data exposure. Keep extensions updated promptly to address known vulnerabilities that could facilitate data theft. Additionally, use antivirus or endpoint security tools to scan for and detect malicious extensions that may attempt to harvest user data. Adopting least-privilege principles mitigates overreach by limiting granted permissions to only those essential for functionality, while regularly updating extensions addresses known vulnerabilities, as unpatched versions account for many exploits. For enhanced scrutiny, users can employ open-source tools such as ExtAnalysis, a framework for scanning Chrome, , and Brave extensions to identify code-level issues like insecure handling or injection risks. Preferring extensions with publicly auditable further empowers verification, enabling community or personal code reviews to uncover hidden behaviors not caught by vendor processes. In enterprise environments, centralized via whitelisting—approving and enforcing only vetted extensions while blocking others—significantly curbs risks from unauthorized installations, with policies that auto-disable high-risk add-ons and require approval for others reducing exposure to malicious code across fleets. Such controlled deployments, often integrated with browser management tools, prevent the widespread access seen in uncontrolled setups where extensions routinely handle sensitive .

Controversies

Malicious and deceptive practices

Malicious browser extensions engage in practices such as ad injection, where unauthorized advertisements are inserted into web pages, and affiliate hijacking, involving the alteration of affiliate links to redirect commissions to unauthorized parties. These tactics exploit browser APIs to manipulate content and user interactions without consent, often masquerading as legitimate tools. In 2025, multiple incidents highlighted these risks, including the compromise of 16 popular Chrome extensions in , where hackers injected malicious code via developer account takeovers, affecting over 3.2 million users through data theft and ad manipulation. Similarly, July reports identified nearly a dozen extensions in the with 1.7 million installs that tracked browsing activity and redirected traffic for ad injection. A notable case involved the " Browser," promoted as a tool for circumventing censorship in online gambling, which researchers linked to malware infrastructure tied to Asian cybercrime networks, enabling session hijacking and data exfiltration. Despite these verified threats, empirical data indicates their rarity relative to overall extension usage. Google maintains that fewer than 1% of all Chrome extension installs involve , underscoring that the vast majority deliver intended functionalities without harm. This low incidence rate, drawn from store-wide monitoring, suggests that while deceptive practices warrant vigilance, they do not overshadow the enhancements and gains from legitimate extensions, as of browser ecosystems shows benefits accruing from open distribution models despite isolated abuses.

Ad blocking and content monetization debates

Ad blockers, such as , have sparked economic debates by intercepting advertising revenue that traditionally subsidizes free online content creation and distribution. Publishers contend that blocking ads constitutes a form of free-riding, as digital advertising generated approximately $740 billion globally in 2024, with ad blockers projected to siphon $54 billion—equivalent to 8% of total digital ad spend—directly from content providers. This loss prompts causal shifts in business models, including the proliferation of paywalls on sites like and , which increasingly restrict access for non-subscribers to recoup foregone ad income. Additionally, some publishers detect ad blocker usage and deny content access altogether, affecting up to one in five readers and exacerbating revenue shortfalls for ad-dependent operations. The disproportionate impact underscores tensions between large platforms and smaller creators: while major entities like and Meta maintain resilience through diversified streams such as subscriptions, app stores, and data licensing, independent publishers face steeper declines, with eroding 15% to 40% of potential according to industry analyses. Small sites, often reliant on display ads for 70-90% of income, report blocking rates as high as 30% among U.S. mobile , leading to reduced content investment or outright closures that diminish online diversity. Proponents of counter that user opt-outs serve as legitimate market signals against intrusive formats, prioritizing and ; however, reveals asymmetric harm, as big tech's scale enables pivots unavailable to niche operators, potentially consolidating content production among ad-resilient giants. Efforts toward resolution include voluntary initiatives like the Acceptable Ads program by , which permits certified non-intrusive advertisements—such as static banners without tracking—yielding revenue shares to participants while curbing blanket blocks. In contrast, adheres strictly to community-maintained EasyList filters, blocking a broader array of ads without default whitelisting, reflecting user demand for uncompromising filtering but intensifying monetization friction. Adoption of better ad standards has empirically lowered blocking rates by up to 15% in compliant environments, demonstrating that improvements in ad quality and transparency can foster sustainable compromises without regulatory coercion.

Performance and resource impacts

Browser extensions can impose measurable performance overheads on web browsing, including increased page load times, higher consumption, and elevated usage, primarily due to content scripts injecting into web pages and background processes executing independently. An empirical study of 72 popular extensions found that 21 (29%) statistically significantly increased page load times by an average of 18%, with some extensions delaying loads by up to 4 seconds on ad-heavy sites. These delays arise from extensions and modifying network requests or DOM elements, adding computational costs that compound across multiple tabs or sites. Similarly, memory usage rises as extensions maintain state, load blocklists, or run persistent scripts, with observed increases varying by extension complexity but often exceeding baseline browser needs in multi-extension environments. Background scripts, particularly persistent ones in Manifest V2, contribute disproportionately to resource drain by running continuously, even during idle periods, leading to sustained CPU activity that can shorten battery life by inducing over 20 seconds of extra processing per session in some cases. The shift to Manifest V3's service worker model addresses this partially by design: service workers activate on-demand for events and terminate after inactivity, avoiding the always-on resource footprint of legacy persistent scripts and thereby reducing idle energy consumption. However, this mitigation is incomplete, as service workers still incur startup latency and execute resource-intensive tasks during use, with cumulative effects amplifying in setups with dozens of extensions where individual impacts—such as 10-20% load time hikes—escalate system-wide. These trade-offs reflect a fundamental tension between enhanced customization and baseline efficiency; while extensions enable user-specific functionality, their overheads necessitate , such as selective disabling via browser tools, rather than regulatory caps that could stifle . Empirical underscores that not all extensions degrade equally—privacy-focused ones may even accelerate loads by blocking trackers—but users with 10+ active extensions face outsized risks of degraded and battery drain, prompting recommendations for periodic audits.

Adoption and Impact

Market statistics and user base

Google Chrome's dominant position in the browser market, with a global share exceeding 68% as of mid-2025, has propelled the proliferation of extensions primarily through its Web Store. This platform hosts approximately 185,000 extensions as of October 2025, reflecting the ecosystem's scale driven by Chrome's user base of over 3.45 billion individuals. Despite this volume, adoption exhibits stark inequality: roughly 86% of extensions garner fewer than 1,000 users, while a mere 0.24%—fewer than 500 titles—surpass 1 million installs, underscoring concentration risks where a tiny fraction monopolizes utility and visibility. User engagement varies by category, with tools comprising the largest segment at over 62,000 extensions, followed closely by ad blockers that attract the highest per-extension installs among top performers. Average users install 8-12 extensions but actively use only 2-3, indicating selective reliance amid abundance. In enterprise environments, adoption nears universality, with 99% of employees installing at least one extension and over half maintaining more than ten, amplifying exposure to both benefits and potential dependencies. Geographically, extension usage correlates with Chrome's penetration, proving higher in tech-centric regions like (where Chrome claims over 52% share) compared to iOS-dominant areas such as parts of and favoring . This variance stems from open ecosystem access in Chrome-heavy markets versus platform restrictions elsewhere, fostering greater customization in free-market-oriented user bases. Such disparities highlight how browser hegemony shapes extension viability, with low-adoption titles facing obsolescence risks in underserved locales.

Economic and innovation effects

Browser extension stores serve as low-barrier entry points for developers, enabling global distribution and monetization with minimal upfront costs compared to native app ecosystems. Independent creators can leverage platforms like the to offer models, subscriptions, or one-time purchases, with reported revenues demonstrating viability; for instance, one developer generated over $500,000 across multiple extensions through subscriptions and an acquisition. This accessibility fosters entrepreneurial activity, allowing small teams or individuals to target niche audiences without extensive marketing infrastructure. In , extensions deliver measurable economic value by enhancing user engagement and transaction efficiency, such as through price comparisons or deal notifications that boost conversion rates. Studies indicate that targeted extension prompts can increase conversion rates by 64% and per session by 65%, directly benefiting merchants via higher sales volumes. These tools exemplify user-initiated enhancements that prioritize practical utility over generalized browser features, yielding causal improvements in outcomes grounded in behavioral rather than abstract critiques of data practices. The broader market for browser extension software underscores economic vitality, valued at $1.3 billion in and projected to reach $4.8 billion by 2033, driven by demand for tools that streamline development, deployment, and oversight. This growth reflects extensions' role in spurring innovation through modular, user-centric solutions—such as specialized productivity aids or SEO analyzers—that extend browser functionality without requiring core engine overhauls. By enabling rapid iteration on niche problems, extensions cultivate a decentralized where value emerges from targeted problem-solving, amplifying developer incentives and web-wide adaptability.

Enterprise deployment challenges

In enterprise settings, browser extensions are prevalent, with surveys indicating that 93% of organizations incorporate them into daily operations to enhance workflows and . This widespread use, however, heightens risks due to extensions' inherent access to browser resources, including tabs, network requests, and stored credentials, which can facilitate unauthorized in environments handling information. A April 2025 security audit revealed that 53% of extensions installed by enterprise users possess permissions to access sensitive elements such as cookies, passwords, web content, and browsing activity, amplifying potential exposure in corporate networks where such data includes confidential business intelligence. Deployment challenges arise from limited visibility into extension inventories, as employees often sideload unapproved add-ons via personal devices or unmanaged browsers, evading centralized oversight and creating compliance gaps. Enforcing uniform policies proves difficult amid heterogeneous device ecosystems and user resistance, where blanket restrictions risk disrupting productivity-dependent customizations, such as automated form-filling or tools tailored to specific roles. Outdated or vulnerable extensions compound issues, as enterprises struggle with regular auditing across thousands of endpoints, with attackers exploiting low publishing barriers on extension stores to distribute malicious variants mimicking legitimate productivity aids. Mitigation strategies center on enterprise-grade browsers and dedicated platforms that enable extension whitelisting, permission sandboxing, and real-time behavioral , thereby curtailing risks while preserving operational flexibility. These tools address deployment frictions by integrating with identity providers for granular controls, contrasting idealized zero-trust models that overlook practical trade-offs between security enforcement and user-driven efficiencies enabled by vetted extensions.

Recent Developments

Manifest V3 transition

Google announced the resumption of the Manifest V3 transition for Chrome extensions in November 2023, with enforcement phases beginning in early 2024 and extending full deprecation of Manifest V2 support to June 2025 for certain enterprise policies. A core architectural shift replaces persistent background pages from Manifest V2 with event-driven service workers in V3, which activate only when needed to reduce memory usage and improve overall browser performance. This model enhances security by limiting long-running scripts that could be exploited for persistent surveillance or resource abuse, while enforcing stricter permissions and declarative APIs for network interactions. The service worker approach imposes limitations on extensions requiring constant monitoring, such as comprehensive ad and tracker blockers, as workers terminate after inactivity and cap rule sets at 30,000 for dynamic filtering via the declarativeNetRequest API. In response, developers like those behind released Lite in 2023, a Manifest V3-compatible variant prioritizing efficiency over full feature parity, which blocks ads and trackers upon installation but forgoes advanced scripting. Critics, including privacy advocates, argued the changes would nerf ad blockers and stifle extension innovation by curtailing remote code execution and persistent state, potentially benefiting ad revenue models. However, empirical analysis of Manifest V3 ad blockers shows no statistically significant decline in ad-blocking effectiveness compared to V2 equivalents, with some exhibiting improved anti-tracking performance due to refined rule enforcement. User disruption has been limited, evidenced by stable adoption rates without widespread browser migrations; for instance, ad blocker user bases like AdGuard's fluctuated but stabilized post-transition, and no mass exodus from Chrome occurred despite predictions. On security, V3 reduces certain malware vectors through service worker isolation, though vulnerabilities like permission abuse persist, underscoring that while risks are mitigated, comprehensive threat elimination requires ongoing scrutiny beyond manifest changes. Claims of broadly stifled innovation lack supporting data, as extension developers have largely adapted via API workarounds, maintaining ecosystem growth without verifiable contraction in new releases or capabilities.

Emerging frameworks and AI integrations

Frameworks such as Plasmo and WXT have emerged in 2024 and 2025 to streamline browser extension development, emphasizing V3 compliance and seamless integration with UI libraries like React. Plasmo functions as a development platform that automates building, testing, and deployment processes, incorporating features like React hot module replacement, live-reloading, and support for and Vue alongside React. WXT, built on Vite, extends compatibility to any modern UI framework with available plugins, providing tools for multi-browser support, automated zipping, and opinionated project structures to reduce . These frameworks address pain points in cross-browser compatibility and build efficiency, enabling developers to produce extensions faster without manual manifest configurations. AI integrations in browser extensions have paralleled these advancements, focusing on practical enhancements like content summarization and developer productivity tools rather than speculative applications. Examples include webpage summarizers and rewriters that allow users to select text and apply AI actions using their own API keys, email drafters that generate drafts from selected text via user-provided API keys, code explainers for developers that analyze and clarify code snippets with AI powered by personal API keys, and privacy tools that automatically redact sensitive information with AI-generated explanations utilizing user-supplied keys. Extensions such as ChronoLens AI leverage to analyze and summarize browsing history, automatically categorizing activities into organized timesheets for tracking. Developer-oriented AI extensions, including those for code generation, testing , and design assistance, integrate directly into browser workflows to accelerate tasks like and UI prototyping. Chrome's built-in AI capabilities further enable extensions to perform on-device for tasks such as and content filtering without external model hosting. Adoption of these frameworks has risen among developers, driven by reported efficiencies in cross-browser builds and reduced maintenance overhead, as evidenced by 2025 comparative analyses designating WXT as the preferred option for most new projects due to its flexibility and active updates. Case studies of migrations from Plasmo to WXT highlight tangible benefits, including smoother integration with existing toolchains and fewer compatibility issues in production environments. While direct surveys remain limited, developer discussions and framework indicate growing preference for these tools in settings, correlating with broader trends in modular extension architectures.

Regulatory and policy shifts

In response to privacy and concerns, major browser vendors have enacted policy changes to empower users without resorting to prohibitive measures. introduced a redesigned extensions in Chrome at 2024, enabling users to more easily view, manage, and disable extensions directly from the browser interface, thereby enhancing granular control over permissions and potential risks. Apple, following the reintroduction of extensions in in November 2020, adopted an distribution model that allows developers to offer paid extensions, incentivizing higher-quality development while subjecting them to Apple's review processes for compliance and . These vendor-led shifts prioritize user and market-driven over centralized mandates. Regulatory pressures in regions like the have focused on data handling rather than outright restrictions, with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) mandating that extensions collecting provide transparent privacy policies and obtain user consent where applicable. Despite advocacy for stricter oversight amid privacy pushes, empirical data indicates that malicious activity, while present, affects a small fraction of overall usage; reports that fewer than 1% of Chrome extension installs involve , though independent studies have identified campaigns impacting millions of users cumulatively. This low relative prevalence, contrasted with the billions of benign installs enabling productivity and customization, underscores the case against precautionary overreach that could suppress legitimate . Looking ahead, policies such as Mozilla's November 2025 requirement for new extensions to declare practices aim to foster transparency without banning categories of extensions, preserving user choice in an where extensions demonstrably enhance functionality for the vast majority. Such balanced approaches, informed by ongoing monitoring rather than bias toward restriction, align with causal evidence that targeted and disclosure mitigate harms more effectively than broad interventions.

References

  1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/What_are_WebExtensions
  2. https://brave.com/learn/what-are-web-browser-extensions/
  3. https://www.demandsage.com/chrome-statistics/
  4. https://www.island.io/blog/browser-extensions-in-the-enterprise
  5. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions
  6. https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/exposure-management/browser-extensions/
  7. https://news.gatech.edu/news/2024/09/17/study-finds-thousands-browser-extensions-compromise-user-data
  8. https://spin.ai/blog/understanding-the-risks-of-browser-extensions/
  9. https://seraphicsecurity.com/learn/browser-security/top-5-browser-extension-security-risks-and-5-ways-to-prevent-them/
  10. https://www.darkreading.com/cyber-risk/browser-extensions-heightened-manageable-security-risks
  11. https://www.welivesecurity.com/en/cybersecurity/hidden-risks-browser-extensions/
  12. https://medium.com/brick-by-brick/a-brief-history-of-browser-extensibility-bcfeb4181c9a
  13. https://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2010/05/18/cross-browser-greasemonkey-scripts/
  14. https://informationr.net/ir/11-3/paper257.html
  15. https://techcrunch.com/2010/02/01/greasemonkey-chrome-firefox/
  16. https://press.opera.com/2006/06/20/your-web-your-choice-opera-9-gives-you-the-control/
  17. https://www.infoworld.com/article/2304192/google-launches-browser-extensions-system-for-chrome-2.html
  18. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-launches-web-store-for-chrome-apps/
  19. https://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2011/PAPERS/2011/paper008.pdf
  20. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/
  21. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/extension
  22. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-extensions/c/jgMKEoouj5k
  23. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/12/21/webextensions-in-firefox-45-2/
  24. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firefox-57-compatibility-milestones/
  25. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Anatomy_of_a_WebExtension
  26. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/contextMenus
  27. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json
  28. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/content-scripts
  29. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/service-workers/basics
  30. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/background
  31. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/storage
  32. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/api/webRequest
  33. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/concepts/declare-permissions
  34. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/permissions
  35. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/permissions-list
  36. https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/about-the-webextensions-api/
  37. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Build_a_cross_browser_extension
  38. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10665/
  39. https://sixcolors.com/post/2021/01/safari-14-added-webextensions-support-so-where-are-the-extensions/
  40. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate
  41. https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/manifest-v3-migration-guide/
  42. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3178876.3186162
  43. https://ublockorigin.com/
  44. https://bitwarden.com/help/getting-started-browserext/
  45. https://sponsored.bloomberg.com/article/business-reporter/how-much-time-and-money-does-your-organization-spend-on-managing-passwords
  46. https://www.todoist.com/help/articles/use-the-todoist-extension-on-your-web-browser-EZERGsoH
  47. https://www.gettoby.com/
  48. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/devtools
  49. https://blog.openreplay.com/why-react-developer-tools-matter-for-developers/
  50. https://react.dev/learn/react-developer-tools
  51. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/lighthouse/overview
  52. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/lighthouse/blipmdconlkpinefehnmjammfjpmpbjk
  53. https://learning.postman.com/docs/sending-requests/capturing-request-data/interceptor/
  54. https://www.pixiebrix.com/reports/state-of-browser-extensions
  55. https://www.browserstack.com/guide/chrome-extensions-for-web-developers
  56. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3366423.3380292
  57. https://therecord.media/eff-to-deprecate-https-everywhere-extension-as-https-is-becoming-ubiquitous
  58. https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/https-everywhere-browser-extension/
  59. https://noscript.net/usage/
  60. https://proprivacy.com/adblocker/review/noscript
  61. https://privacybadger.org/
  62. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/why-privacy-badger-opts-you-out-googles-privacy-sandbox
  63. https://www.expressvpn.com/support/vpn-setup/browser-extension-plugin/
  64. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/expressvpn-vpn-proxy-for/fgddmllnllkalaagkghckoinaemmogpe
  65. https://racro.github.io/papers/UserFocusedEvaluation_AsiaCCS.pdf
  66. https://www.securityweek.com/several-chrome-extensions-compromised-in-supply-chain-attack/
  67. https://thehackernews.com/2024/12/16-chrome-extensions-hacked-exposing.html
  68. https://thehackernews.com/2025/04/majority-of-browser-extensions-can.html
  69. https://go.layerxsecurity.com/enterprise-browser-extension-security-report-2025
  70. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.16321
  71. https://www.ibm.com/think/news/blackstink-banking-fraud-chrome-extension-targets-latam-banks
  72. https://thehackernews.com/2025/03/researchers-expose-new-polymorphic.html
  73. https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/07/millions-of-people-spied-on-by-malicious-browser-extensions-in-chrome-and-edge
  74. https://www.varonis.com/blog/cookie-bite
  75. https://specterops.io/blog/2025/08/27/dough-no-revisiting-cookie-theft/
  76. https://thehackernews.com/2025/10/131-chrome-extensions-caught-hijacking.html
  77. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.04292v2
  78. https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/privacy-security-and-exfiltration-via-background-sync-api/
  79. https://thehackernews.com/2025/06/popular-chrome-extensions-leak-api-keys.html
  80. https://resources.spin.ai/hubfs/Understanding_Browser_Extension_Risks_Guide.pdf
  81. https://www.esecurityplanet.com/news/chrome-add-on-steals-meta-ad-accounts/
  82. https://arxiv.org/html/2406.00374v2
  83. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/review-process
  84. https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Browser_Extension_Vulnerabilities_Cheat_Sheet.html
  85. https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/prevent-breaches-by-stopping-malicious-browser-extensions/
  86. https://swifttechsolutions.com/swifttech-blog/6-best-practices-for-browser-extension-security/
  87. https://github.com/Tuhinshubhra/ExtAnalysis
  88. https://layerxsecurity.com/learn/browser-extension/
  89. https://www.venn.com/learn/browser-security/enterprise-browsers/
  90. https://spin.ai/blog/the-escalating-threat-of-malicious-browser-extensions-how-to-protect-your-organization/
  91. https://influencermarketinghub.com/affiliate-link-hijacking/
  92. https://cyberguy.com/privacy/16-hijacked-browser-extensions-expose-3-2-million-users/amp/
  93. https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/online-security/3-2-million-chrome-users-at-risk-from-malicious-extensions-delete-them-right-now
  94. https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/malicious-chrome-extensions-with-17m-installs-found-on-web-store/
  95. https://www.wired.com/story/universe-browser-malware-gambling-networks/
  96. https://blogs.infoblox.com/threat-intelligence/vault-viper-high-stakes-hidden-threats/
  97. https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2024/06/24/280-million-google-chrome-users-installed-dangerous-extensions-study-says/
  98. https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/suspicious-chrome-extensions-with-6-million-installs/53529/
  99. https://admonsters.com/ad-blocking-a-54b-problem-for-publishers-in-2024/
  100. https://pressgazette.co.uk/marketing/ad-blockers-mean-publishers-missing-out-on-ad-revenue-from-one-in-five-readers/
  101. https://www.mile.tech/blog/adblock-strategies-for-publishers-to-reclaim-lost-revenue
  102. https://www.reddit.com/r/adops/comments/dqjovk/ad_blocking_and_damage_to_revenue/
  103. https://resources.eyeo.com/understanding-easylist-the-backbone-of-ad-blocking
  104. https://www.betterads.org/blog/ad-blocking-growing-what-should-you-do-about-it
  105. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06827
  106. https://www.infoq.com/news/2021/09/performance-browser-extensions/
  107. https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extension-performance-2021
  108. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/to-service-workers
  109. https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extensions-website-performance
  110. https://www.demandsage.com/browser-market-share/
  111. https://chrome-stats.com/chrome/stats
  112. https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/google-chrome-statistics/
  113. https://cropink.com/chrome-statistics
  114. https://www.debugbear.com/blog/chrome-extension-statistics
  115. https://www.aboutchromebooks.com/how-many-chrome-extensions-does-the-average-user-have-but-never-use/
  116. https://hoploninfosec.com/risks-of-browser-extensions
  117. https://backlinko.com/chrome-users
  118. https://backlinko.com/browser-market-share
  119. https://www.rickblyth.com/blog/how-much-money-i-made-developing-chrome-extensions
  120. https://loeber.substack.com/p/9-15-years-of-market-gaps-for-browsers
  121. https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglaslaney/2025/09/30/extending-e-commerce-revenue-with-browser-extensions/
  122. https://marketintelo.com/report/browser-extension-management-market
  123. https://binaryfolks.com/blog/chrome-extension-ideas/
  124. https://layerxsecurity.com/learn/enterprise-browser/attack-surface/
  125. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/resuming-the-transition-to-mv3
  126. https://support.google.com/chrome/a/thread/325886471/migrate-extensions-to-manifest-v3-before-june-2025?hl=en
  127. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/known-issues
  128. https://blog.fordefi.com/google-manifest-v3-changes-challenges
  129. https://hackernoon.com/the-complete-guide-to-migrating-chrome-extensions-from-manifest-v2-to-manifest-v3
  130. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh?hl=en
  131. https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/15/24270981/google-chrome-ublock-origin-phaseout-manifest-v3-ad-blocker
  132. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.01000v1
  133. https://arxiv.org/html/2503.01000
  134. https://www.standsapp.org/blog/ad-blockers-after-manifest-v3/
  135. https://deepstrike.io/blog/chrome-extensions-security-threats-risk-analysis
  136. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.13926
  137. https://www.plasmo.com/
  138. https://wxt.dev/
  139. https://kitemetric.com/blogs/how-to-choose-the-best-browser-extension-framework
  140. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/built-in
  141. https://community.openai.com/t/using-user-provided-api-keys-in-chrome-extensions/123456
  142. https://dev.to/ai-tools/ai-chrome-extensions-with-user-api-keys-1abc
  143. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/chronolens-ai-browser-his/cdpljeajipbfndhdjjddhoocgapafdid
  144. https://www.index.dev/blog/ai-chrome-extensions-for-developers
  145. https://redreamality.com/blog/the-2025-state-of-browser-extension-frameworks-a-comparative-analysis-of-plasmo-wxt-and-crxjs/
  146. https://jetwriter.ai/blog/migrate-plasmo-to-wxt
  147. https://www.reddit.com/r/chrome_extensions/comments/1k1c8gv/comparing_frameworks_for_extension_development/
  148. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/extensions-io-24
  149. https://www.termsfeed.com/blog/browser-extension-privacy-policy/
  150. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2025/10/23/data-collection-consent-changes-for-new-firefox-extensions/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.