Slashdot Mirror
Google To Block Local Chrome Extensions On Windows Starting In January
An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced it will block local Chrome extensions starting in January, but only on the Windows platform. This means that next year, Windows users will only be able to install extensions for the company's browser from the Chrome Web Store. The changes will affect both Chrome's stable and beta channels on Windows. Google says it will continue to support local extension installs on its Dev and Canary channels, as well as installs via Enterprise policy. Chrome apps are not affected at all and will continue to be supported normally."
I know that LastPass has a web app, but the local app has for more options. Hope they get this updated before January!
For example, YouTube downloaders-
I stopped using Chrome because it's extensions were not up to par with Firefox addons.
And now I feel less inclined to use Chrome at all.
I use an extension to download videos from YouTube. Those tend to be blocked from the Web Store, so you have to install them manually from other websites (this is the bit that is getting blocked). I hope there is at least a command line switch left in to disable this behavior! It's very "walled garden" and I don't like it.
BTW, the summary says "local extensions" but that is incorrect. It just blocks non-Chrome Web Store web extensions. Extensions you are actively developing and load via "Load unpacked extension" will still work.
Actually, that might have to be the fix for my YouTube extension I use. Oh well.
...And overnight, Chromium replaces 97% of Chrome's market share.
Good thing I use Chromium.
Adblock, maybe?
Did Google recently buy a brick factory because they seem to be trying to slowly build a wall around their not-quite-as-open-as-it-once-was garden. Between this and some of the stuff they are pulling with Android (Play Store, API lock-ins) and Chromecast they seem to be all about turning down the openness lately. Come to think of it, that seems to be a trend (Skype, Twitter APIs off the top of my head, then of course that fruit company) lately.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Oh, wait, you can just use Chromium and stop crying.
Anyone that uses Chrome and bitches deserves to suffer. You do not need automatic updates.
In fact, automatic updates are more of a pain than anything. There is a reason nobody uses forced updating in business, because developers are asshats that constantly break their own shit and then everyone suffers because of it.
Chromium devs are some of the worst for that too. I can't count how many times "stable" updates broke the browser back in the earlier days, jesus christ what the hell were you guys doing?
If they do, however, block it on Chromium, I am serious in the forking question, I can easily drop my life and work on it. Fuck Google. Don't piss me off, I'm bitter, determined and lifeless outside of code.
I suspect that this is less about blocking YouTube downloaders, and more about blocking those extensions that appear after not un-checking the box on programs downloaded and installed from the internet. I.e. it's more for the protection of grandma who wants to download a pretty solitaire app than it is for stopping little Johnny downloading his music videos of Miley. If you're smart enough to follow a few simple instructions and install a local extension, you're smart enough to follow a few simple instructions and install the Dev channel of Chrome first.
mediahint, Hola, anything that lets you free VPN into services that you aren't really supposed to be able to access.
I have the same add-on available for both Google Chrome and Firefox. Firefox has about 100x as many users.
See Also: Google Chrome 25 will disable silent extension installation, kill all such extensions retroactively
Friday, 21 Dec 2012
Translation: Google still can't figure out how to secure Chrome from stealth installs of malware.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/11/04/merging-of-google-voice-and-hangouts-will-result-shutting-down-all-3rd-party-voice-apps-in-may-2014/
Yes, you can use a 3rd party VoIP app with a 3rd party provider, but having the Google integration was really nice. And how many will be free? Only ones i know of hook into Google voice .. all the rest are pay, so might as well keep using your cell minutes.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Adblock definitely not be available to chrome soon
All adblock apps and addons were banned from google play store already.
Firefox is only browser on android and desktop that will support adblock plugin soon.
Plus they've realy exposed their hate of adblock on google groups forums
Adblock is on the Chrome Web Store.
If that were the motivation, would they not also do this on the Mac?
This is about _fucking_ annoying windows malware repeatedly reinstalling chrome extensions.
The fact that they are not breaking the capability on 'enterprise' policy installs suggests the same.
Incidentally, even if you aren't on a domain, this should mean that it isn't exactly rocket surgery to install the 'blocked' Chrome extensions. Winkey+r, gpedit.msc, import the chromium policy templates, modify 'ExtensionInstallForcelist' to taste. Game over.
Came here to say this, it's all about the malware. Tons of malware apps use Chrome plugins.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Google's catch phrase "don't be evil" reminds me of the famous Outerlimits Episode where the aliens come "TO serve Man", and it turns out that's the title of their cook book.
So google walls its garden. The walls seem to be taller than apples. FOr example, try installing linux on a chromebook. Sure you can do it but every single time it falls asleep or boots the screen it says after wake"You are running in an insecure mode, press the space bar". If press the spacebar, it erases the hard drive and re-installs chrome from scratch. Thus it's practically impossible to run Linux in any stable way on a chrome book. Yes it runs, but it's like having a set of rotating knives permanently surrounding the on-off switch. They just don't want you to do this, while they want to take credit for having an "open" platform. ( by comparisons Apples are happy to boot to linux, no rotating knives thrust at you upon wake from sleep.)
Now they crank down on the path you can use to install extensions.
Google has become not only more severe than apple but they also sell all your private info.
Google actually meant "Don't settle for being merely Evil".
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
combined with "strategic" moves like this blocking of extensions, makes them look like nothing so much as a bunch of entitled sociopathic douche bags
I think words like "disorganized" and "unreliable" would describe it better.
It will still be able to installed. The EFF also has it in the Chrome store.
It was nice, Chrome. Your scripting engine was fast. You hardly ever crashed. Your UI was pretty decent. I could even overlook some of your shortcomings. You were my first tabbed browser. I was actually willing to retrain my brain to quit using my OS's more universal process switching in defference to your tabbiness. We had some tough times closing the whole browser by accident when we really only wanted to close the page; but we worked through it. Your scripting engine was fast. You were young and sexy. It had to end though. I knew you wanted to pull me into your walled garden and make me mow every Saturday. I just wasn't ready for that kind of commitment. I know it's painful but I think we both realize it's time to move on. There's this other browser and, well... it's a fox.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In the store. Google made some changes to Webkit a while back to improve Adblock, before Adblock used to still have to download the ads, then block them. Some changes Google made allowed the ads to be blocked before the ads were fetched.
Perhaps not... Apparently, I'm not too deeply versed in Windows technical arcana, but apparently some applications are configured by group policy indirectly (group policy changes the registry in the appropriate places, the application reads the registry in those places and acts accordingly) and some applications use an OS-provided API to query the applied group policies directly and apply those(exactly where the policies are stored in this instance is not clear to me. The domain controller presumably has them, in a networked environment; but where on the client they persist if it goes off the grid for a bit, or in the case of a locally managed machine, I don't know).
As of version 28, (according to the thread in the above link, because of malware leading Chrome around by the nose through modifications of the registry entries), Chrome switched from the registry-based mechanism to the new mechanism. Modifications to the registry are now ignored, and only policies applied by the OS-supported group policy manipulation mechanisms will apply.
I assume that these policies have to live somewhere, and thus can be edited (even if the OS protects them hard enough that you need a hex editor and a liveCD to do it); but it won't be a simple regedit.exe job.
shushsh, the hosts file guy may hear you.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
Or edit your HOSTS file...
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Firefox is only browser on android and desktop that will support adblock plugin soon.
Mac Safari has AdBlock as well.
#DeleteChrome
If they were planning to do that they would have started by removing all the existing extensions on their web store that let you do those things. You can install numerous YouTube downloaders, proxy managers, ad blockers etc. and the same goes for Play (Android apps).
This move is simply to block malware.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
AdBlock Plus for Chrome, from the official Google site: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon
There are many other ad blockers available on there too. If you are going to lie you should at least think of something that isn't so trivially easy to disprove.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Well, potentially, because you want a consistent experience across devices, via settings, bookmarks, history etc via Firefox Sync.
I've never used it personally (tin-foil hat...)
Did you read the thread I linked to?
It's roughly 50% Windows admins whose GPO-fu is weak bitching because their registry hacks don't work anymore, and 50% Chromium developers telling them that, yes, sorry, Chrome queries group policy state directly, only falling back to the registry under specific conditions (and noting that they make no assurance that that fallback will continue in the future.)
If that isn't enough, try a look at 'policy_loader_win.h'. It's fairly clear about reading the registry, rather than grovelling through the policies directly, is a fallback behavior that occurs only if grovelling through the policies doesn't work out.