What does HackerNews think of darkreader?

Dark Reader Chrome and Firefox extension

Language: TypeScript

I use a Firefox browser extension called "Dark Reader" [1] to force a dark mode on most of the websites I frequent and I'm more or less happy with it. If there was an extension that Solarized them instead, I'd probably go with that instead.

https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

I quite like these safari extensions. They almost make up for the forced safari monopoly on iOS (but not really).

I use dark reader on chrome for computers. They also have a safari extension that surprisingly works just as well.

https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

https://darkreader.org/safari/

I'm concerned, though, whether these extensions work the same as chrome extensions.

Can they view and potentially upload your browser passwords/bank info/etc?

Is there some limitation that prevents this in the implementation?

I use https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader to optionally apply dark themes to websites that don't support themes, or don't provide theme options. It's pretty good, but there are definitely some sites that it doesn't work well enough with. Worth having though, as I do prefer dark themes - I feel my eyestrain has been reduced since using it.

Perhaps this type of functionality (perhaps limited to toggling the prefers-color-scheme setting) is something browsers should consider baking into the default UI/Chrome.

Unfortunately Chrome doesn't granularize it any further. Basically all it needs to do is inject some CSS, and in Chrome permission-speak that is covered under the umbrella of "read and change all your data".

The source is however available so you could inspect it for yourself and install from source:

https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

For desktop HN I use DarkReader[0] and for Android HN I use Materialistic[1] — both provide a superb dark-mode experience.

[0] https://darkreader.org/ | https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.github.hidr... | https://github.com/hidroh/materialistic

> How in the world would making it more clear how to write more secure extensions possibly worsen the extension store's malware problem?

Unfortunately, information that helps the good guys get their extensions past the audit check is exactly the same information that helps the bad guys get their extensions in too. The bad guys simply move onto the next security flaw that Google hasn't anticipated.

Maybe the bad guys use some common tactics to get their scam extensions in the store which good guys don't, which is easy for Google to detect and flag. If you release a list of known no-no's, the bad guys just get smarter and avoid them.

This obviously skews in favour of refusing some good extensions to keep most bad ones out.

In terms of Google already auditing every app, check out the source code for Dark Reader https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader. It's fairly complex. I can only imagine how many extensions are as, or more, complex than that. I wonder how much auditing is done manually vs automated.

The two best Dark Mode extensions just implemented automatic Dark Mode support (so the web goes dark automatically when Dark Mode is enabled) :D

https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

https://github.com/openstyles/stylus (not built into release yet)

My recommendations for a global dark-mode:

- lightweight, not perfect, never crashes: https://userstyles.org/styles/112107/global-black-for-amoled... (but don't install "stylish" use something maleware free like "stylus"

- heavy, as good as it gets, sometimes hangs on certain sites: https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

Ubuntu Mono https://design.ubuntu.com/font/

Changed the font of Hacker News to Ubuntu Mono a while ago with https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader and can see the difference between those characters in your post quite clearly

To his credit, the author has released the source for the Chrome and Firefox versions:

https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader

However, I posed the same question in the MAS about the closed-source Safari version, which requires full access to webpage contents ("Can read sensitive information from webpages, including passwords, phone numbers, and credit cards on all webpages") and browsing history ("Can see when you visit all webpages").

The author's response boiled down to "trust me" and "trust Apple's review process".

Shortly after mentioning recent headlines highlighting weaknesses in Apple's review process ("More malicious apps found in Mac App Store that are stealing user data" https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/07/more-malicious-ap... , "Mac App Store apps are stealing user data" https://blog.malwarebytes.com/threat-analysis/2018/09/mac-ap... , etc), Apple deleted the review, but a cached version can be found here: http://www.gadgeteur.com/2018/11/26/dark-reader-for-safari-a... and here: https://pastebin.com/DxsWcaj7 .

EDIT: Other than the permissions issue (which was unfortunately a show-stopper for me), I was very pleased with the Safari extension's functionality; it could be a good fit for those who restrict their web browsing to non-sensitive sites or who can remember to disable it when necessary.

i use this. best "turn everything into dark mode" ff plugin ever. supports per website settings. https://github.com/darkreader/darkreader