Slashdot Mirror
Google Expands Safe Browsing To Block Unwanted Downloads
An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced it is expanding its Safe Browsing service to protect users against malware that makes unexpected changes to your computer. Google says it will show a warning in Chrome whenever an attempt is made to trick you into downloading and installing such software. In the case of malware, PUA stands for Potentially Unwanted Application, which is also sometimes called Potentially Unwanted Program or PUP. In short, the broad terms encompass any downloads that the user does not want, typically because they display popups, show ads, install toolbars in the default browser, change the homepage or the search engine, run several processes in the background that slow down the PC, and so on."
Not that hard to maintain a database of crapware and require people to double check before they activate it?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Even smart people (in other arenas) don't get it.
It's that many more days between fixes to someone's computer after you install Chrome -- if Chrome is still your browser of choice.
...and many open source program installers trying to get you to install toolbars, etc. Should be interesting.
Due to the crapware that the JRE wants to install - will Google block Oracle? Let's hope so.
So will it flag apps that come with the Google Toolbar bundled?
Great! But I think they could do better than Potentially Unwanted Application (PUA). How about Possible Overly Obnoxious Program (POOP)?
Google says it will show a warning in Chrome whenever an attempt is made to trick you into downloading and installing such software.
That's ... hilarious? I've always considered Chrome to be PUP or PUA considering how it always seemed to be downloaded with something else. I've had to remove Chrome from so many systems where someone has updated some other program and Chrome came along for the ride, sometimes even when I've installed other things and didn't pay extremely close attention. Now Chrome is going to rat out other programs that do the same thing!
I'm looking at you, CNET... you used to be cool.
Pretty much any site requiring a "file downloader" is simply evil and should be expunged by or at least blacklisted by browsers. That would help fight 80% of the delivery of malware that I've seen infecting friend's and family's computers.
I've already turned it off due to a false flag and it wouldn't download the file. There needs to be an option to override if you know it's safe or want to take the risk.
That they're using PUA. Now maybe the "pick up artists" can finally see themselves as what they truly are. Potentially Unwanted Applications (Programs).
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
When I heard Chrome was blocking PUAs, I was giddy. Finally, a browser that blocks those stupid, fedora-wearing jerks that have plagued the tech industry for too long. Then the rest of my brain kicked in.
Any software that opt-ins to install Chrome, set the page to Google, and install the Googlebar too?
Kinda hypocrit since they're trying to sneak their software in downloads themselves
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
The important question is: will Google display warnings about APK's hosts file proggy? Because he likes to threaten lawsuits about that and I want to stock up on popcorn before the show starts!
Would they also block downloads with Chrome bundled? That spyware is definitely unwanted on my system.
I know it's started becoming a common terminology, but I don't really like the terms "Potentially Unwanted Program" and "Potentially Unwanted Application". Any program/application is *potentially* unwanted. Whenever someone starts talking about PUP/PUA, I can never figure out where they're drawing the line.
CA falsely accused me of a ware being malware & removed the threat level (reduced to zero threat in the end) on my passing all 21 of their then questions for removal (This was upon the advice of an attorney John Lowe of Hiscock & Barclay in a conversation with him regarding it on the telephone that I take their test for removal).
So, I did so, & I passed the 21 questions, & the "alleged threat" was downrated, BUT, should have been removed totally: It wasn't.
Same happened on my APK Hosts File Engine in 2012 (delaying its release by many months even though it was ready back as far as late 2003, & I held off out of respect for webmasters profiting by ads. However, when the "malware explosion" 2004 onwards took off & ADBANNERS were infected MANY TIMES (shown here in some examples only recently -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... in its last few posts as concrete, verifiable & undeniable fact, out the door she went in 2012).
MalwareBytes' hpHosts and others in the security community helped me disprove the false positives (which WERE RESCINDED by these big names in the antivirus industry when it passed MOST of the online tests @ JOTTI & VirusTotal) in McAfee/Intel, Norton/Symantec, ClamAV, Comodo, & ArcaVir (iirc on the exact ones that removed their false positive) AND on the EXACT grounds I noted they were WRONG, blatantly, on... mind you.
I.E.-> They didn't "get" an exe compression method I used in the 64 bit model, but left the 32 bit model alone (the exact SAME codebase in 99.999% except for noting if 32-bit vs. 64-bit in resources strings only, thus same code)...
APK
P.S.=> Even "big names" make mistakes & it appears "little wannabes" like who you mention DID TOO along with CA whose reputation IS questionable:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=c...
(Proof's in the pudding on CA accounting scandals the SEC got onto them for + they WERE found guilty - too bad the pudding's all over his face for it now)... apk
That Bing and MSN are on that list? Darned things took over Chrome on my Mac. Not quite sure how it happened. However, Chrome is now slow as heck.
Sad state of affairs when I am finding I am using Safari just to avoid it.
or maybe use those sites to DOS themselves
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So this will be in addition to the anti virus warnings, and the multiple Microsoft warnings?
Don't clueless people WANT the functionality that these PUA install?
It's currently blocking all downloads of software from dropbox. Which is super annoying. I kickstarted a game for the Oculus Rift, and the developer was trying to distribute the demo to his backers via dropbox, and Chrome is blocking it.
It's installer wants to include McAffee every once in a while. Can it block that crap too?
I hope they block Java and it's updates. It's ridiculous that this should include search hijacking by default.
Apparently, it is not Google (as in the search engine, or the company) that will block things. It is their shady browser, Chrome, that will block things.
So people not using Chrome (quite some, I'd say) are not helped by this endeavour.
"Google today announced it is expanding its Safe Browsing service to protect users against malware that makes unexpected changes to your computer."
so there are malware that do expected things as well? where can I get some?
Google's blocking me from downloading Razer's in-game VoIP software.
Trivially worked around, but concerning.
Firefox running NoScript or Chrome not running NoScript ( since last I heard it wasn't available for Chrome )?
To me, every Javascript snippet, especially those from Google (however Urchin.js is called these days) *is* a PUP.
That's why I'm so pissed off at Mozilla for taking away the "disable Javascript" button from their UI. This has significantly reduced my trust on browser vendors (including Mozilla, the ones I formerly trusted most).
Not my allies, but the advertising industries' allies.
I wish they would call it Potential Unwanted and Harmful Application (PUHA) which is the danish word for 'poo'.
Is this not just more annoyance then help. I mean if people can't figure out if they should download something, they will get infected anyway.
A lot of infections come from people who will download a free program that comes attached with something they probably do not want. I have a family member who
probably get's about a half dozen toolbars and scanners installed every six months that are considered malware in my book. As someone else says, its good in theory but how its implemented and what kind of annoyances it causes with false positives will decide if its a good thing or just another feature users will work to disable.
run several processes in the background that slow down the PC, and so on
So Windows 8 is on the list?
They can start with all the crap that tries to install Bing,Ask and a good few others that takes over the browser and makes it unusable, and sometimes being an absolute PITA to get rid of... Google toolbar is actually not that bad and I have yet to see it snuck in the backdoor like the rest of them. At least, Google toolbar actually offers a few useful features such as the page translation.
They know it adds security, speed, reliability, & more for users + You're welcome to disprove this point by point:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects, /. beta for example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> BING http://www.bing.com/search?q=%... + Google https://www.google.com/search?...
... apk