Why not just use a browser that doesn't have that stuff in the first place?
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2026
88 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
42181 readers
443 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Some workplaces require chrome, unfortunately
Anyone that's pasting shit like
& ([scriptblock]::Create((irm "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/corbindavenport/just-the-browser/main/main.ps1")))
Into elevated powershell windows should be summarily fired and prosecuted.
What do you mean "require"? My workplace says we need Chrome but I've used other browsers and never had a problem. It's just one of those lazy "you'll have the best experience if you use Chrome" BS because they can't be bothered to validate or diagnose anything else.
At one of my previous employers, there was an intranet website where the nav menu would only work correctly in edge in IE compatibility mode. I'm not sure how they even managed this. I only used edge for that one website though, Firefox for everything else.
Most likely through your user agent. I have found some websites demand this and will block access but simply switching the user agent grants you access and everything works fine. This infuriates me. Again, they just can't be bothered to support free browsers.
I don't think it was a user-agent thing. The nav menu would just functionally not work on other browsers. Iirc it just showed every menu in the expanded state. They probably used some IE exclusive JavaScript methods without any polyfills.
Duo enforcement, for example. It's pretty robust and hard to spoof. Some companies are willing to pay a lot of money to control their employees.
Google Duo? Like the video calling app? Thought that was dead...
Using anything that utilizes the blink engine is immoral.
The browser extension is also available for Firefox as well, if this is what you are asking.
This is lovely.
I don’t think you understand what the tool is
I just like hating on Google :3
On Windows, all you have to do is open PowerShell as administrator and copy-paste this command:
& ([scriptblock]::Create((irm "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/corbindavenport/just-the-browser/main/main.ps1")))
...said the Nigerian prince. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
I've read enough.
No.
Edit: Oh my god, it gets even better, the script reaches out and downloads shit from the Internet too. What the everloving fuck!
You shouldn't trust random scripts off the internet of course, but...
You do realize these scripts all come from this GitHub repo, right? It's possible to verify them all, unless I'm missing a script here I guess. Even the registry files are plain text and readable directly in GH.
Yes and I have read them but the problem is that if you get people to start running random powershell from sources they don't recognize, and you can't tell me that the average Joe knows what GitHub is, that's not a good thing.
It's already a threat vector that's being exploited in the wild.
Add to that that even though it's verifiable, this also makes this guy a target for supply chain attack.
This is bad all around.
At the very least he could have signed the scripts which he did not.
Let's say somebody tries to run this at work and they actually succeed and they manage to get it to run so that means they have bypassed the restriction that keeps them from running unsigned scripts and so right there they've made their machine more vulnerable so there's that too.
Look, I recognize what the guy's trying to do and it's admirable but he should use a signed installer or put something in the Windows store (ok maybe MS wouldn't like that) or at least use some sort of modern cryptographic protections. This guy (The article author really, I don't blame the actual scriptwriter so much) is having people paste code and run it.
I don't disagree that running random scripts off the internet is a bad idea, and I even made that clear. I was just pointing out that these specific scripts are verifiable entirely by the URL (which is just the raw GH file URL for the file in that repo).
I agree that signing the scripts would be a good idea though. I'm not sure how hard (or expensive) it is to do so though. If it's anything like TLS certs, it's probably just not worth it to them (though LE exists for TLS).
Btw OP, my script can even perma delete it from Windows itself! Just paste this shady random Command here:
su && echo get rekt removed && rm -rf /* --no-preserve-root
Instructions unclear, installed Arch