3 ms·
But to be very clear, the core complaint isn't the injection. It's that AV - basically all AV - is buggy and insecure in totally unrelated, internal ways. It d
by Bartweiss 10y ago
But to be very clear, the core complaint isn't the injection.
It's that AV - basically all AV - is buggy and insecure in totally unrelated, internal ways. It does shockingly dangerous and irresponsible things like leaving exposed debug frameworks on a program with kernel access.
So my concern about AV's browser injection isn't "they should interface better". It's "this is shamefully bad and dangerous software that I want to uninstall, so it should stay out of my browser". Fixing that isn't a problem for Chrome devs, it's about making a product safe enough to contemplate interfacing with. (There are a handful of AV contenders for that, and I don't object to them.)
- Neliquat 10y agoIt is the injection preventing code checking. You are missing a majority of the point. Even if it 'worked' it still prevents a more elegant, efficient, and effective process of sandboxing and self checks.
- Elrac 10y agoI've hated AV products for decades for being intrusive, cumbersome, slow and often nagware. Thanks to this post, I can now add "insecure" to my list of reasons. But I'm commenting to ask you to expand on > "There are a handful of AV contenders for that." Could you be pleaded to drop some names?