I am aware that google will take looong time to act. that is why I mentioned that it is LinkedIn (Microsoft) or its contracted fingerprinting/"monitoring" partner who may have more direct ways to report this if they actually investigate malicious extensions.
but that doesn't really matter. for the sake of the argument assume the extensions are not malicious (as evidenced e.g. by the PQC one with ?16 users?) does that change the situation?
but that doesn't really matter. for the sake of the argument assume the extensions are not malicious (as evidenced e.g. by the PQC one with ?16 users?) does that change the situation?