Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Expands Safe Browsing To Block Unwanted Downloads

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the now-you-can-turn-off-adblock dept.

Google 106

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good idea. (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47672693)

Not that hard to maintain a database of crapware and require people to double check before they activate it?

Re:Good idea. (2)

ShaunC (203807) | about 2 months ago | (#47672951)

As with many things, the theory is fine, we're going to have to wait and see how it's executed. I've grown wary of lists like this because invariably you wind up with false positives, or with benign items being added to the list intentionally.

Re:Good idea. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673065)

The real test is if they block stuff that installs Google Toolbar. If they don't then this is all just bullshit.

Re:Good idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47675011)

As with many things, the theory is fine, we're going to have to wait and see how it's executed.

I would be happy if they figured out a permanent solution to things like drive by downloads. Seems easy enough, all downloads have to be physically initiated by the user (neither the os nor the browser can initiate one by itself). There would still be social engineering to overcome "You seem to be having Youtube problems, click here to find out why" but things happening hidden in the background would stop.

Re:Good idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673159)

Not if crapware is tweaked to be different on each download. Then Google Safe Browsing has to switch from "checksum" to a more sophisticated "signature". Then crapware switches to more advanced obfuscation. It's an arms race and it is hard.

even better to blackhole those sites. (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 2 months ago | (#47673379)

or maybe use those sites to DOS themselves

Good. (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47672699)

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.

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673285)

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.

Unless Chrome is the source of the infection. Like imitating gotomypc type apps with their built in, firewall hole punching remote control app.

Re:Good. (1)

Skuto (171945) | about 2 months ago | (#47674543)

Internet Explorer has offered this for far longer than Chrome and it's actually quite effective when you don't click away the warnings. Note that Firefox and Safari also use the same SafeBrowsing service as Chrome does, though they have to wait for the protocol documentation to be updated before offering features like this one.

That would include Java then... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672717)

...and many open source program installers trying to get you to install toolbars, etc. Should be interesting.

Re:That would include Java then... (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47672741)

Java's sideloading of other crap causes anger to the power of a thousand suns.

It'd be less bothersome if every JRE update didn't suck so much to begin with.

Re:That would include Java then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672847)

wait wait wait people use java? i have never installed java and never had trouble running the internet.

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 2 months ago | (#47672933)

A lot of companies do. I have to have Java installed on my work computers - and not just because we end up writing a lot of Java code ourselves. The backup software IT uses requires 32-bit Java. (Not 64-bit, it will crash if you use 64-bit Java. Up until recently it would also crash if you used anything after Java 1.6, but since that's no longer supported, they finally fixed that.)

There are also a few internal sites that require Java applets, so that's fun to deal with too.

Re:That would include Java then... (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 2 months ago | (#47674399)

Considering Minecraft has sold over 54 million copies, [gamespot.com] a few million which are on PC and OSX, yeah, people STILL use Java.

Re:That would include Java then... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672859)

Find the Java Control Panel, go to advanced options, and near the bottom in miscellaneous, you can tell java not to bug you with crap ware when it updates.

Re:That would include Java then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673099)

And then on reboot it always seems to reset itself.

Re:That would include Java then... (3, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47673517)

On Windows, from an enterprise perspective, that's not the way to do it.

Java has moved to a set of files that go in %systemroot%\sun\java\deployment that now manages those settings.

...except they don't always work, and load in a race with the start of Java, causing options to be ignored half the time.

Re:That would include Java then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47675913)

I find it easier just to download Java from here:

http://www.oracle.com/technetw... [oracle.com]

The benefit of downloading the JRE from here is that it doesn't bundle anything - no Ask toolbars, nothing. Since I've been downloading the JDK for several years from here, I already knew about this site for the JRE for end-user machines. When people kept complaining about toolbars I honestly didn't know what they were talking about until I realized most people don't know about this particular URL. Man it feels good to know something most people don't sometimes. :)

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

lgw (121541) | about 2 months ago | (#47672797)

Yep - both MS and Google have both said they'll being doing this, but I don't believe them or anyone else till they block download of the Java installer.

It's easy to block stuff that's matches the "malware pattern" described in the TFA, but it's the potential lawsuits by malware distributers (claiming to be legit, of course) that have prevented us from the right answer so far. Both MS and Google have the money to stand up to any such attack, and to take on Oracle over Java if it comes to that - but do they have the balls?

Time will tell.

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672927)

Like Sourceforge installers.

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 months ago | (#47673109)

I doubt coinstallers are what they block considering the side stuff is downloaded as a separate MSI on the fly while the original installer is running. It sounds like they'll block "flash player pro" and ilivid and others that hide behind fake download button ads THAT THEY THEMSELVES HOST WITH FUCKING ADSENSE!

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47673223)

The number of programs that try to get you to install toolbars is frustratingly large. When I bought my new computer, I installed a bunch of programs that I regularly use. One of my usual programs, as I installed it, suddenly started asking me to install toolbar after toolbar. Only it didn't say "Do you want to install X." It told me X was going to be installed as the next step and I had to go into Advanced Options and uncheck multiple checkboxes to prevent X from being installed. Repeat for Y, Z, Q, etc. I must have slipped up and clicked Next too quickly on one because one or two of the malware programs got on my system. They then tried to bug me to install their buddies. It took me a bit to clean those off my nice, new computer. All it takes is one sneaky program (or one program you previously trusted going to the dark side) and one moment of not paying attention to get infected.

Re:That would include Java then... (2, Insightful)

dixonpete (1267776) | about 2 months ago | (#47673327)

U gotta love Linux's repository model for this. Less choice but a lot more stability/honesty.

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47673433)

On the Windows side, there is one download site that I almost always get my programs from. If the program includes toolbars or the like, they will warn you about it so you can opt-out during the install process. They will completely weed out any programs that are infected. (The previously-trusted program that had a bunch that slipped through had been downloaded directly from the program creator's website, however.) It's not a fool-proof solution, of course, but it helps.

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 2 months ago | (#47673667)

On the Windows side, there is one download site that I almost always get my programs from

Since I'm sure others are looking for a trustworthy archive of that sort (I know I am), care to name the one you use?

Re:That would include Java then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47674161)

The most popular site for that is: https://ninite.com/ [ninite.com]

Re:That would include Java then... (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47674991)

The one I use is http://www.SnapFiles.com/ [snapfiles.com] .

Re:That would include Java then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47679911)

There is something like it for windows, but I haven't tried it yet. http://chocolatey.org/ [chocolatey.org]

Re:That would include Java then... (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 2 months ago | (#47674431)

Name and shame, dude. What the hell piece of software *WAS* that?

sf.net is screwed! (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 2 months ago | (#47672759)

Seriously, I think I download a PUA more often than not when visiting that cesspool. It used to be a great site.

Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (1)

bmk67 (971394) | about 2 months ago | (#47672777)

Due to the crapware that the JRE wants to install - will Google block Oracle? Let's hope so.

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672803)

The important question is whether they'll have the balls to block Google Toolbar.

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673075)

Amen to that.

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673089)

Who uses that shit anyway? The same idiots who use Chrome or anything else by Google? "PLEASE, TAKE EVERYTHING IN MY LIFE IN EXCHANGE FOR ADS!"

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673293)

No, dumbass, you can't use the google toolbar with google chorme. Its redundant.

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (1)

deviated_prevert (1146403) | about 2 months ago | (#47675883)

No, dumbass, you can't use the google toolbar with google chorme. Its redundant.

Too bad you called the OP a dork, for obvious reasons. If I had mod points I would have given your post a boost. Obviously the same goes for the bing things and all the other crapware from AOL and the like. Google is running into the same image problem that Microsoft did with activeX. Damned if you do, loose user eyeballs if you don't. Java that is another whole kettle of muck. Here is hoping that html5 does not turn out to be as insidious with add on off browser capable apps that just highjack the engine and fool the user into thinking the add on is a real computer program that they absolutely must have.

The mind of the user is the first target of add on malware, the second target is usually their wallet.

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47673149)

The important question is whether they'll have the balls to block Google Toolbar.

Last time Java wanted me to update, it asked if I wanted to install Google Chrome!

Hrm...

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 2 months ago | (#47672905)

But will save me from the java install trying to trick me into downloading chrome?

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (1)

johanw (1001493) | about 2 months ago | (#47673027)

Even better: will they build something that does download Java and then blocks the Ask.com shit? I want to see the reaction of Oracle on that.

Re:Will Google have the balls to block Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673323)

What does this have to do with Google? Any third party can build that thing and put it on a website. If enough people link to that website it will become the top result for "download java".

Google Toolbar? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672811)

So will it flag apps that come with the Google Toolbar bundled?

Re:Google Toolbar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672929)

I'd guess so. I'd also guess the days of Google Toolbar are numbered.

Modest suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672869)

Great! But I think they could do better than Potentially Unwanted Application (PUA). How about Possible Overly Obnoxious Program (POOP)?

Re:Modest suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672887)

Maybe they can block Pick Up Artists too?

You just can't make this stuff up (4, Interesting)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 months ago | (#47672909)

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!

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (4, Insightful)

Gordo_1 (256312) | about 2 months ago | (#47673007)

Well, as any successful malware author knows, you must pull up the ladder behind you once you're on board.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47673723)

Can you name an app that bundles Chrome? I've never seen it installed via some other app.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 months ago | (#47673813)

Can you name an app that bundles Chrome?

No, it has been long enough ago that I don't remember which did.

I know they did because that was the only way it ever made its way onto one of my systems.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47674289)

Either winscp or cdburnerxp, can't remember which.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47674987)

Pretty sure Google Earth used to do it. And Java. And they throw up Chrome ads (with false claims too) whenever you use one of their services from Firefox.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47675083)

avast, irfanview, and java I think did at one time.. plus bunches of others.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (2)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 months ago | (#47676251)

Adobe Flash Player as recently as yesterday.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47676301)

It seems to bundle McAfee, not Chrome. What version are you looking at?

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (2)

Elbart (1233584) | about 2 months ago | (#47676553)

It's bundling McAfee when you download the Flash player with Firefox, but it's bundling Chrome when you download it in IE. :)

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 2 months ago | (#47677077)

Correct. It wants to bundle Chrome and the Chrome Toolbar for IE when you're visiting the Flash installer page on IE.

Re:You just can't make this stuff up (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 2 months ago | (#47676559)

Cyberlink PowerDVD, iirc.

Block all file downloaders (4, Insightful)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 2 months ago | (#47672935)

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.

Re:Block all file downloaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673283)

That's because they must have downloaded the file downloader through a direct link and not using the file downloader

Re:Block all file downloaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676125)

s/browser/user/

Browsers shouldn't make those kinds of decisions for their users, and it would be unfortunate to have one less viable browser for self-determining people to use all because Google wants to reverse the roles.

already turned it off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672937)

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.

God I love the fact (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 2 months ago | (#47672953)

That they're using PUA. Now maybe the "pick up artists" can finally see themselves as what they truly are. Potentially Unwanted Applications (Programs).

Re:God I love the fact (1)

KamikazeSquid (3611985) | about 2 months ago | (#47674003)

That really is too perfect.

I hate pick-up artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47672997)

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.

Everything? (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 2 months ago | (#47673009)

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

APK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673015)

The important question is: will Google display warnings about APK's hosts file proggy? Because he likes to threaten lawsuits about that [thorschrock.com] and I want to stock up on popcorn before the show starts!

He got no legal threat from me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673247)

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... [slashdot.org] 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... [bing.com]

(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

Re:He got no legal threat from me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676597)

You are just a psychopath, Pete.

Re:He got no legal threat from me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678251)

From results shown in post parent to yours You're not qualified to judge software or anyone personally.

Google & BING show my stuff still... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673309)

They know it adds security, speed, reliability, & more for users online: You're welcome to disprove this point by point in fact on that note:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

(Details of benefits in link)

Summary:

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,

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... [mozilla.org] )

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=a... [bing.com] and GOOGLE: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

...apk

Re:APK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673353)

Thor's an online get rich quick affiliates marketer, right? Apk's program blocks ads that infect with malicious code and steal your speed/bandwidth you pay for to be online. Go figure you wrote such inaccurate crap. Go away Thor. We know why you hate apk and We know it's you posting by ac too, right?

Re:APK (0)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 2 months ago | (#47673557)

it's like saying "candyman" 3 times into a mirror..

Block downloads with Chrome bundled (3, Informative)

johanw (1001493) | about 2 months ago | (#47673019)

Would they also block downloads with Chrome bundled? That spyware is definitely unwanted on my system.

Potentially... (2)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 months ago | (#47673101)

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.

Re:Potentially... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 months ago | (#47673453)

Any program/application is *potentially* unwanted.

If you've clicked on a link that says "install program X", then program X is no longer potentially unwanted. That's the line. Potentially unwanted applies to the programs Y and Z that are bundled in with program X and install without you asking for them. You may want Y and Z or you may not, thus they are potentially unwanted.

Re:Potentially... (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 months ago | (#47673699)

If you've clicked on a link that says "install program X", then program X is no longer potentially unwanted.

I think you mean something like "unwittingly installed program" then. You could knowingly install an application and still retain the potential for not-wanting it.

Re:Potentially... (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 months ago | (#47674129)

I think you mean something like "unwittingly installed program" then.

No, I think I meant what I said. While Y and Z may also be "unwittingly installed", they are potentially unwanted because there is a good possibility that they were not wanted in the first place. Until the user is asked explicitly, you don't know if he wants them or not, so the potential exists.

You could knowingly install an application and still retain the potential for not-wanting it.

The act of knowingly installing it contradicts that. If you don't want it, don't make the choice to install it. Now, it may be that they are wanted just to be evaluated and then they are no longer wanted, or they are wanted because someone who has control over the person who installs them wants them, but the want at the time of the install is still in evidence.

Re:Potentially... (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 months ago | (#47677193)

The act of knowingly installing it contradicts that. If you don't want it, don't make the choice to install it.

See there, you're talking about *actually* unwanted programs. If a program is potentially unwanted, then it's not currently unwanted. It just might become unwanted in the future.

Re:Potentially... (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | about 2 months ago | (#47674367)

Purulent Unwanted Shiat [PUS] almost recursive. complete with an accurate visual image of the object oozing and malodorous.

Re:Potentially... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 months ago | (#47677433)

Crapware. Is "crap" an offensive word? It's from "Thomas Crapper", inventor of the ballcock and the man who popularized the flush toilet.

Re:Potentially... (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 2 months ago | (#47677535)

He gave us both the word "crap" and "ballcock"? What a guy.

I trust... (1)

Ronin Developer (67677) | about 2 months ago | (#47673249)

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.

Re:I trust... (1)

brainnolo (688900) | about 2 months ago | (#47673525)

Try Yandex.Browser. It's based on Chromium, comes with an ad blocker and is snappier than Safari. I switched to that from Safari and never looked back. In settings you can set Google as default search engine if you do not like Yandex search (I don't).

how many warmings? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 2 months ago | (#47673665)

So this will be in addition to the anti virus warnings, and the multiple Microsoft warnings?

Re:how many warmings? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673743)

Yes, of course. You have been trained to ignore all that noise.

I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47673731)

Don't clueless people WANT the functionality that these PUA install?

Re:I'm confused (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47674411)

Don't clueless people WANT the functionality that these PUA install?

Not anymore -- now lots of installers come with "Yes, I want to install random malware" checkbox pre-checked. Used to be you could just mash the "next" button when installing, now if you do that your computer will get p0wned.

It's broken (2)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 months ago | (#47673785)

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.

Re:It's broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676013)

"Boo hooo... I don't know how to wget"
"The intertubes are my computer"

Boo friggin' hooo

Adobe Flash (1)

FlynnMP3 (33498) | about 2 months ago | (#47673873)

It's installer wants to include McAffee every once in a while. Can it block that crap too?

Oracle Java (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#47674061)

I hope they block Java and it's updates. It's ridiculous that this should include search hijacking by default.

The title is a lie (1)

Vlijmen Fileer (120268) | about 2 months ago | (#47674329)

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.

Re:The title is a lie (1)

Skuto (171945) | about 2 months ago | (#47674503)

As the article points out, the service is used by Firefox (with a number of privacy improvements) and Safari as well.

wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47674925)

"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?

Razer Comms (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about 2 months ago | (#47675279)

Google's blocking me from downloading Razer's in-game VoIP software.

Trivially worked around, but concerning.

So which is safer ? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 2 months ago | (#47675569)

Firefox running NoScript or Chrome not running NoScript ( since last I heard it wasn't available for Chrome )?

Every Javascript snippet is a PUP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47675783)

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.

Better acronyms (1)

bombman (87339) | about 2 months ago | (#47676065)

I wish they would call it Potential Unwanted and Harmful Application (PUHA) which is the danish word for 'poo'.

Vista UAC all over again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47676339)

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.

Windows 8 (1)

vawarayer (1035638) | about 2 months ago | (#47677789)

run several processes in the background that slow down the PC, and so on

So Windows 8 is on the list?

Re:Windows 8 (1)

vawarayer (1035638) | about 2 months ago | (#47677813)

Potentially Unwanted Nag intented.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?