Impact of Extensions on Browser Performance: An Empirical Study on Google Chrome

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06827v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:31:40 GMT
• Title: Impact of Extensions on Browser Performance: An Empirical Study on Google Chrome
• Authors: Bihui Jin, Heng Li, Ying Zou,
• Abstract summary: We conduct an empirical study to understand the impact of extensions on the user-perceived performance of Google Chrome. We observe that browser performance can be negatively impacted by the use of extensions, even when the extensions are used in unintended circumstances. We identify a set of factors that significantly influence the performance impact of extensions, such as code complexity and privacy practices.
• Score: 3.000496428347787
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Web browsers have been used widely by users to conduct various online activities, such as information seeking or online shopping. To improve user experience and extend the functionality of browsers, practitioners provide mechanisms to allow users to install third-party-provided plugins (i.e., extensions) on their browsers. However, little is known about the performance implications caused by such extensions. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study to understand the impact of extensions on the user-perceived performance (i.e., energy consumption and page load time) of Google Chrome, the most popular browser. We study a total of 72 representative extensions from 11 categories (e.g., Developer Tools and Sports). We observe that browser performance can be negatively impacted by the use of extensions, even when the extensions are used in unintended circumstances (e.g., when logging into an extension is not granted but required, or when an extension is not used for designated websites). We also identify a set of factors that significantly influence the performance impact of extensions, such as code complexity and privacy practices (i.e., collection of user data) adopted by the extensions. Based on our empirical observations, we provide recommendations for developers and users to mitigate the performance impact of browser extensions, such as conducting performance testing and optimization for unintended usage scenarios of extensions, or adhering to proper usage practices of extensions (e.g., logging into an extension when required).

Related papers

• From Blocking to Breaking: Evaluating the Impact of Adblockers on Web Usability [14.498659516878718]
  We aim to assess the extent of web breakages caused by adblocking on live sites using automated tools. The study also outlines the challenges and limitations encountered when measuring web breakages in real-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T23:25:07Z)
• How Unique is Whose Web Browser? The role of demographics in browser fingerprinting among US users [50.699390248359265]
  Browser fingerprinting can be used to identify and track users across the Web, even without cookies. This technique and resulting privacy risks have been studied for over a decade. We provide a first-of-its-kind dataset to enable further research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T14:51:58Z)
• What is in the Chrome Web Store? Investigating Security-Noteworthy Browser Extensions [1.2499537119440243]
  This paper is the first attempt at providing a holistic view of the Chrome Web Store (CWS) We leverage historical data provided by ChromeStats to study global trends in the CWS and security implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T15:25:06Z)
• Did I Vet You Before? Assessing the Chrome Web Store Vetting Process through Browser Extension Similarity [3.7980955101286322]
  We characterize the prevalence of malware and other infringing extensions in the Chrome Web Store (CWS), the largest distribution platform for this type of software. Our study reveals significant gaps in the CWS vetting process, as 86% of infringing extensions are extremely similar to previously vetted items. Our study also reveals that only 1% of malware extensions flagged by the CWS are detected as malicious by anti-malware engines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T09:17:01Z)
• FV8: A Forced Execution JavaScript Engine for Detecting Evasive Techniques [53.288368877654705]
  FV8 is a modified V8 JavaScript engine designed to identify evasion techniques in JavaScript code. It selectively enforces code execution on APIs that conditionally inject dynamic code. It identifies 1,443 npm packages and 164 (82%) extensions containing at least one type of evasion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T19:54:19Z)
• Manifest V3 Unveiled: Navigating the New Era of Browser Extensions [53.288368877654705]
  In 2020, Google announced a shift in extension development with Manifest Version 3 (V3), aiming to replace the previous Version 2 (V2) by January 2023. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the Manifest V3 ecosystem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-12T08:09:26Z)
• Anatomizing Deep Learning Inference in Web Browsers [17.63663828498732]
  We make the first comprehensive performance measurement of in-browser inference to date. Our approach proposes new metrics to measure in-browser inference: responsiveness, smoothness, and inference accuracy. In-browser inference exhibits a substantial latency gap, averaging 16.9 times slower on CPU and 4.9 times slower on GPU compared to native inference on PC devices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-08T08:02:57Z)
• User Attitudes to Content Moderation in Web Search [49.1574468325115]
  We examine the levels of support for different moderation practices applied to potentially misleading and/or potentially offensive content in web search. We find that the most supported practice is informing users about potentially misleading or offensive content, and the least supported one is the complete removal of search results. More conservative users and users with lower levels of trust in web search results are more likely to be against content moderation in web search.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T10:57:15Z)
• An Empirical Study of In-App Advertising Issues Based on Large Scale App Review Analysis [67.58267006314415]
  We present a large-scale analysis on ad-related user feedback from App Store and Google Play. From a statistical analysis of 36,309 ad-related reviews, we find that users care most about the number of unique ads and ad display frequency during usage. Some ad issue types are addressed more quickly by developers than other ad issues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-22T05:38:24Z)
• General-Purpose User Embeddings based on Mobile App Usage [46.343844014289246]
  behaviors on mobile app usage, including retention, installation, and uninstallation, can be a good indicator for both long-term and short-term interests of users. Traditionally, user modeling from mobile app usage heavily relies on handcrafted feature engineering. We present a tailored AutoEncoder-coupled Transformer Network (AETN), by which we overcome these challenges and achieve the goals of reducing manual efforts and boosting performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-27T12:01:50Z)
• adPerf: Characterizing the Performance of Third-party Ads [5.9535711951131205]
  We apply an in-depth and first-of-a-kind performance evaluation of web ads. We aim to characterize the cost by every component of an ad, so the publisher, ad syndicate, and advertiser can improve the ad's performance with detailed guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-06T02:09:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.