Protecting Web Browser Extensions from JavaScript Injection Attacks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerable web browser extensions can be used by an attacker to steal users' credentials and lure users into leaking sensitive information to unauthorized parties. Current browser security models and existing JavaScript security solutions are inadequate for preventing JavaScript injection attacks that can exploit such vulnerable extensions. In this paper, we present a runtime protection mechanism based on a code randomization technique coupled with a static analysis technique to protect browser extensions from JavaScript injection attacks. The protection is enforced at runtime by distinguishing malicious code from the randomized extension code. We implemented our protection mechanism for the Mozilla Firefox browser and evaluated it on a set of vulnerable and non-vulnerable Firefox extensions. The evaluation results indicate that our approach can be a viable solution for preventing attacks on JavaScript-based browser extensions. In designing and implementing our approach, we were also able to reduce false positives and achieve maximum backward compatibility with existing extensions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it