Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Adding Chrome Admin Policy To Uninstall Blacklisted Extensions (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the coming-soon-to-a-browser-near-you dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Google is adding a new admin policy to Chrome that will automatically uninstall browser extensions that are blacklisted by administrators. Currently, administrators can enable a policy called "Configure extension installation blacklist" to create a blacklist of Chrome extension. These blacklisted extensions are added as individual extension ids, and once added, will prevent managed users from installing the associated extensions. To do this, Windows administrators can download Chrome's policy templates and add them to the Group Policy Editor. Once added, they will be able to configure various group polices.

While this policy prevents users from installing an extension, it does not do anything for those users who have already installed the extension. Due to this, administrators have been requesting a new group policy that will cause Chrome to remove any extension that is listed under the "Configure extension installation blacklist" policy. Google agrees and have started working on a new Chrome policy called "Uninstall blacklisted extensions" that will uninstall any extensions whose IDs have been blacklisted. In addition to removing the extensions, it will remove any associated local user data as well. The new policy is expected to be released with Chrome 75, which is heading to beta in May and expected to be released to the Stable channel in June.

13 comments

  1. Whitelist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would have expected an extension whitelist to be more useful than a blacklist when any restriction is needed at all.

    1. Re:Whitelist? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm unclear on why you would use the blacklist option(except because of a quirk of notation; if memory serves just setting a whitelist doesn't automatically block everything not on it; but setting a blacklist of '*' blocks everything except extensions where being on the whitelist takes precedence); but they offer both. (Documentation page is for the Windows GPO options; but Chrome's actual settings are mostly the same across platforms, just wrapped in the platform-native setting delivery mechanism. Only real exception are the ones aimed at Chromebooks, which control things that aren't within scope of Chrome on a full OS.)

    2. Re: Whitelist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how does this thing identify addons? By their name? How hard can it be to download the addon package and modify the name before installing it locally or putting it back on the chrome store under a diff name so it gets re-signed.

    3. Re: Whitelist? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      So how does this thing identify addons? By their name? How hard can it be to download the addon package and modify the name before installing it locally or putting it back on the chrome store under a diff name so it gets re-signed.

      It's by the identifier, which you can see in chrome://extensions. The one for uBlock Origin is "cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm". Sure, someone could try to get the code in the Chrome Web Store (or whatever they call it) another time, but user installation is less likely if the blacklisted extension has 400k installs and the workaround copy has none.

  2. Can they make a 'not a liberal douche' flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They keep making me re-enable plugins like dissenter on every update. Could they at least ask if I am a complete asshole socialist first before they assume I am like them?

    1. Re:Can they make a 'not a liberal douche' flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have a Klan rally to attend Jethro?

  3. Good news by FernandaYulianto · · Score: 1

    This is good news, some add-on have dangerous script on it that can steal people information.

  4. How about not cucking my browser, google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone open source this piece of shit and remove the enterprise "features"?

    1. Re:How about not cucking my browser, google? by Truekaiser · · Score: 0

      The open source branch is called chromium.

  5. A slippery slope by etudiant · · Score: 1

    Chrome is the preeminent global browser.
    Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.
    Blacklisted and removed from user installations on what basis? Who decides and what are the criteria. Is there any appeal?
    Sure seems to grant a lot of trust to a firm that is quite often in the courts.

    1. Re:A slippery slope by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.

      Chrome has allowed the removal of black listed extensions for the best part of 10 years already. If you aren't re-assured as a result of this announcement then your brain isn't functioning.

      All they are doing here is allowing corporate IT to set more policy controls over their computers where Chrome is used.

    2. Re:A slippery slope by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what blacklisting extension are even doing. On managed computers all the extensions allowed to be used, should be available only from a local server and those Chrome books and should not talk to google ever, except for search, then still technically they should duckduckgo.

      On managed computer all acceptable extensions should be set by managed, with specific extensions for specific users and the update files should be downloaded from Google and stored locally. Google should have zero control over managed computer, the idea is nuts for any proper business set up.

      Why would you allow your users to install any unapproved apps for that specific user, the idea is nuts and all updating should be done locally and downloaded from google via IT and made available locally and the computer set to update as best suits company and network needs. Black list should be every single app no specifically approved for that client.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:A slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.
      Blacklisted and removed from user installations on what basis? Who decides and what are the criteria. Is there any appeal?
      Sure seems to grant a lot of trust to a firm that is quite often in the courts.

      I can see the future. Surprise, extensions that block or affect Google in any way (e.g. ad-blockers) are now blacklisted.

      Don't be evil my ass.