Chrome's incompatible applications warning

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by stapp, Aug 21, 2018.

  1. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    23,870
    Location:
    UK
  2. IvoShoen

    IvoShoen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    849
    I don't see this with Chromium.
     
  3. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Good to hear, will be great news when they are all completely blocked.
     
  4. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,456
  5. guest

    guest Guest

    Bitdefender Disables Anti-Exploit Monitoring in Chrome After Google Policy Change
    August 24, 2018
    https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...itoring-in-chrome-after-google-policy-change/
     
  6. bellgamin

    bellgamin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    8,099
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Good point!

    I am pretty sure that Bit Defender, MBAE, & other apps that "hook" browsers are hooking ALL browsers, not just Chrome. Are other browsers blaming instability issues on hooking, or is it only Chrome? Is Google using hooking as an excuse for an area of instability that affects Chrome more than it does competing browsers? IMO, this is yet another instance of Google's arrogant elitism whereby they seek to banish problems rather than solve them.
     
  7. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Yes all browser developers have been vocal about hooking being a source of crashes. You need reminded that Chrome is not the first to block them, Edge was. When all browsers block these idiotic "security" suites the web will be a better place.

    Great. They will all fall in line slowly and be forced to clean up their act.
     
  8. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    1,999
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    Mozilla also doesn't like all that AV code injection:
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/ex-to...tch-all-antivirus-except-microsofts-defender/
     
  9. Azure Phoenix

    Azure Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2014
    Posts:
    1,556
    While it's said Edge was blocking injection as well. If you look into MBAE with process explorer you can see that interestingly it stil injects in Edge.
     
  10. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    8,591
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    They must have MS code signed their .dll. Edge has CIG enabled and will block any image code injection not MS code signed, WQL, or higher.
     
  11. bellgamin

    bellgamin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    8,099
    Location:
    Hawaii
    This link says nothing about hooks causing instability in Firefox. Instead, it's simply a Windows Defender plug that totally ignores comparative test reports by saying "...there's little evidence non-Microsoft AV improves PC security". It sounds like this former Mozilla guy may be fishing for a job at Microsoft.

    IMO: (1) MS submits WinDef to comparative tests primarily because other AVs do so, and (2) MS primarily improves WinDef because it has competition from other AVs.

    For a goodly long time I have used MBAE & Firefox, so I am pretty sure FF is hooked -- but in all this time FF has never crashed, even though I usually have 12-15 tabs open. Thus, I would very much like to see links to attributable statements, by proponents of other browsers, to the effect that hooking is an insurmountable problem relative to maintaining browser stability.
     
  12. reasonablePrivacy

    reasonablePrivacy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2017
    Posts:
    1,999
    Location:
    Member state of European Union
    I understand not agreeing with him on effectivity of Windows Defender. Just don't focus on that part.
     
  13. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    17,546
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes, it's a dumb decision, they should allow code injection of trusted security apps. I'm wondering what this means for apps like HMPA and Sandboxie. On the other hand, certain apps have no business hooking the browser, think of Acronis True Image, Dropbox and FileZilla.
     
  14. bellgamin

    bellgamin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    8,099
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I see your point. Finally.

    What is of concern, I think, is O'Callahan's statement that "antivirus vendors don't follow standard security practices..." The exploiters of browser weaknesses are ALSO "not following standard security practices." Maybe O'Callahan should give them a good scolding. :rolleyes:

    My point is, I doubt that any AV vendor is using new approaches for any reason other than trying to take aim at the exploiters, who are a MOVING target.

    Browsers are a primary entry point for computer infections. Both the vendors of AVs and the proponents of browsers have a shared goal for preventing exploits. Any conflict between them, such as that begun by Google on behalf of Chrome, benefits the exploiters of browsers much more than the users of browsers.

    Instead of being a leader toward coordinating efforts to prevent exploits, Google says "it's my way or the highway." IMO, that arrogant attitude benefits NO one except the exploit hacks.
     
  15. Minimalist

    Minimalist Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Posts:
    14,881
    Location:
    Slovenia, EU
    I agree with that. Companies that monopolize some market, tend to develop this (arrogant) attitude. Just look at MS.
    That's one of the reasons why monopolies are not in best interest of end users, no matter how "good" or "not evil" they try to present themselves.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.