Is The Washington Post Safe? — Extension Safety Profile
Quick verdict: The Washington Post earns a safety grade A, 81.6 out of 100, based on 5 of 5 dimensions.
81.6/100
Grade A · 5 of 5 checks
What we found
Automated safety profile from public signals (the extension's manifest & permissions, store listing, publisher, privacy policy). A full review hasn't been published yet.
What this safety grade means
The Washington Post earns a safety grade of A (81.6/100), measured across 5 of 5 dimensions. Its strongest area is Permissions & Access (100%). The weakest is Maintenance & Ownership (30%) — what holds its grade back the most.
On the public records we can check, The Washington Post comes through cleanly. 40,000 active users/installs reported on the store. Store rating 4.3/5 from 50 user ratings. Last updated on the store 2025-07-16. This is an automated profile, not a hands-on review — so treat the grade as a starting point: open The Washington Post's own store listing and privacy policy before installing, and weigh it against the other browser extensions we track below.
Safety Signals
Based on 5 of 5 safety dimensions
| Dimension | Score | Bar | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Publisher & Identity | 60% · 4.8/8 pts 2 of 5 checks verified | Automated signals | |
| Permissions & Access | 100% · 25/25 pts 3 of 3 checks verified | Automated signals | |
| Data & Privacy | 93% · 14.8/16 pts 4 of 5 checks verified | Automated signals | |
| Maintenance & Ownership | 30% · 2.3/7.5 pts 1 of 2 checks verified | Automated signals | |
| Community Reputation | 74% · 7.4/10 pts 2 of 4 checks verified | Automated signals |
In-depth safety analysis
The extension requests only the "storage" permission, which allows it to save small amounts of data locally on your device, such as user preferences or reading progress. This is a very limited scope and is appropriate for a news-related extension that does not need to read or modify web page content or browsing history.
For a general browser extension from a major news publisher, typical safety considerations include ensuring you install the official version to avoid clones or impersonators. The developer-declared privacy practices note collection of location and user activity, which is common for personalization but means users should review the privacy policy to understand data handling. Even with minimal permissions, any data collection warrants attention.
The strongest dimension in the assessment is Permissions & Access, scoring perfectly due to the minimal permission request. The weakest is Maintenance & Ownership, which suggests that update frequency or publisher verification could be improved; while the extension was recently updated, a low score here may indicate a need for ongoing caution regarding its long-term upkeep and reliability.
AI-assisted analysis of the documented signals above (permissions, store data, privacy practices) — explains what they mean and the risks typical for this category. Not a hands-on test.
What the store listing shows
Who's Behind The Washington Post?
- Publisher https://www.washingtonpost.com/
Public records identify the publisher, but no individual founders or a separate registered company are named — which is what holds the Publisher & Identity score back. Less public information about who operates an extension means less you can verify about their long-term accountability.
How it compares
Among the 838 browser extensions we track, The Washington Post scores higher on safety than 69% of them.
Computed from our own database of assessed browser extensions — updated as we track more.
Evidence on File (12)
The Washington Post FAQ
- Is The Washington Post safe?
- The Washington Post earns a safety grade of A (81.6/100) on our evidence-based assessment, based on 5 of 5 safety dimensions we could verify from public records. This is an automated profile built from public records, not a hands-on review.
- Who is behind The Washington Post?
- The Washington Post is operated by https://www.washingtonpost.com/.
Browse all browser extensions we've checked →