3 ms·

Because a third party app on Windows can edit the Firefox preferences file to set the opt-out preference and then install its unsigned malware/spying/ad-injecti

Because a third party app on Windows can edit the Firefox preferences file to set the opt-out preference and then install its unsigned malware/spying/ad-injecting extension and it'll be loaded the next time Firefox starts up with no warning to the user. This is why Chrome hashes its settings files on Windows so that when any 3rd party app tries to mess with it, it wipes all extensions and extension settings and resets the homepage and search engine to the defaults. Unfortunately this also means that you can't move your Chrome settings to another PC as they'll all get reset. You have to sync to Google to ensure all your settings aren't wiped by a badware app or a corrupt byte in the Chrome settings file.

currysausage 11y ago
Pretty fascinating. How do they store the hash?
- kuschku 11y ago
  On the Google sync servers, that's the trick.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    It's synced to the Google servers, but the hashes are within the settings file itself. I'm unsure if the code is public, though, as it is not part of Chromium. The downside is that an unaware user that prefers not to sync their stuff to Google and fastidiously backs up all their user settings in Windows is going to lose everything they have stored in Chrome except their bookmarks and passwords if their computer dies or they try to move to a new one.
ambrop7 11y ago
The security of the browser is conditional on the security of the platform in the first place, so this does not make sense. Anything that can edit the settings of the browser without its knowledge can interfere with the browser and other software in other bad ways. It especially does not make sense for users who actually do have a reasonably secure platform, and these "security features" are then purely an annoyance.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  Here's the thing, though. They work. It's far easier for a low to mid-tier bundleware company to build a basic browser extension that inserts ads or takes over the homepage/search engine using basic off-the-shelf components than it is for them to install a system-level networking component that intercepts and changes browser networking calls without breaking things. Google Chrome took a dual pronged approach to disallow all extensions except those in their online store an disallow third party changes to browser settings. So, bundleware can't easily install into Chrome. It can easily install into Firefox because you or anyone else on the PC can install whatever you want. Just because this practice doesn't apply to or benefit you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to and benefit the majority of browser users. Remember, the majority of Firefox users don't even use extensions at all. Closing this hole would increase their security browser-wise. Ironic Note: Google Chrome, while attempting to block bundleware from interfering with its own operation, is one of the most widely distributed bundleware apps. Installers that use dark patterns (tricking users to not notice they're installing a new default browser) from Oracle's Java to Adobe Flash to Avast to Antivir all are used to install Chrome onto systems (hopefully) without the user noticing.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    Of course, Google Chrome itself is probably less malicious than many of the other bundleware. I wonder how many would have supported Firefox doing the same thing in 2004.

currysausage 11y ago

Pretty fascinating. How do they store the hash?

kuschku 11y ago
On the Google sync servers, that's the trick.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  It's synced to the Google servers, but the hashes are within the settings file itself. I'm unsure if the code is public, though, as it is not part of Chromium. The downside is that an unaware user that prefers not to sync their stuff to Google and fastidiously backs up all their user settings in Windows is going to lose everything they have stored in Chrome except their bookmarks and passwords if their computer dies or they try to move to a new one.

ambrop7 11y ago

The security of the browser is conditional on the security of the platform in the first place, so this does not make sense. Anything that can edit the settings of the browser without its knowledge can interfere with the browser and other software in other bad ways. It especially does not make sense for users who actually do have a reasonably secure platform, and these "security features" are then purely an annoyance.

JohnTHaller 11y ago
Here's the thing, though. They work. It's far easier for a low to mid-tier bundleware company to build a basic browser extension that inserts ads or takes over the homepage/search engine using basic off-the-shelf components than it is for them to install a system-level networking component that intercepts and changes browser networking calls without breaking things. Google Chrome took a dual pronged approach to disallow all extensions except those in their online store an disallow third party changes to browser settings. So, bundleware can't easily install into Chrome. It can easily install into Firefox because you or anyone else on the PC can install whatever you want. Just because this practice doesn't apply to or benefit you doesn't mean it doesn't apply to and benefit the majority of browser users. Remember, the majority of Firefox users don't even use extensions at all. Closing this hole would increase their security browser-wise. Ironic Note: Google Chrome, while attempting to block bundleware from interfering with its own operation, is one of the most widely distributed bundleware apps. Installers that use dark patterns (tricking users to not notice they're installing a new default browser) from Oracle's Java to Adobe Flash to Avast to Antivir all are used to install Chrome onto systems (hopefully) without the user noticing.
- yuhong 11y ago
  Of course, Google Chrome itself is probably less malicious than many of the other bundleware. I wonder how many would have supported Firefox doing the same thing in 2004.