5 ms·

Doesn't Google Chrome run under %AppData% in a default (non-MSI) install? (This is how it's able to silently update itself, even when run as a non-administrato

• MartinCron 13y ago
  Yes, I was able to install Google Chrome on a PC which the user didn't have administrative rights just yesterday. It delighted me to no end.
• lstamour 13y ago
  My understanding is they changed that and by default it wants admin rights. Then if that fails, it asks if you want to continue without. (At least, this was my experience the last time I had to install Chrome on a machine without admin rights.)
• jrabone 13y ago
  And that's just as good an idea as executable data segments in a binary format (ie. not a very good idea). It's taken MS literally YEARS to get to half-decent default filesystem permissions in Windows 7 and this kind of thing just undermines it totally.
  • derefr 13y ago
    What do you suggest instead? People who work at BigCorps and have shitty outdated IE installs are motivated to install alternative web browsers, even when they don't have administrative rights (and they almost never do.) Google is motivated to enable them to do so. The real problem, I think, is that Microsoft thinks requiring admin rights to write to "Program Files" is the be-all and end-all of solving the "application-environment integrity problem." That works for enterprise-wide deploys of sysadmin-supported software, but falls down for user-specific installations. On OSX, "application-environment integrity" can be enforced easily enough, since the OS delineates applications by a line called "the app bundle." OSX can (though I'm not sure it does) just disallow apps from writing into other apps' bundles without a "do you really mean it" prompt. But in Windows, the The Directory Is The Application Bundle[1], and so Windows doesn't know that this directory is special and should be protected from having other apps in other directories tinkering with it. [1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2011/06/20/10176772.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2011/06/20/10176...
• jussij 13y ago
  Google Chrome Updater certainly does have a few virus like characteristics. Every time my interent connection slows (WiFi) I know it's Chrome Updater so I kill it via Task Manager and everthing is good again. There doesn't apear to be away to turn it off inside Chrome itself and turning off updates via the registry does not seem to stop it.
  • samstave 13y ago
    >Google Chrome Updater certainly does have a few virus like characteristics. You could say it's in its DNA
    • WiseWeasel 13y ago
      Wouldn't it have to be in its RNA? /ducks
      • mbreese 13y ago
        There are both DNA and RNA viruses.
        • _-_-_- 13y ago
          And retroviruses- an RNA virus that reverse transcribes itself into a DNA provirus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcribing_virus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcribing_virus
        • WiseWeasel 13y ago
          G(uanine), C(ytosine) and U(racil) are RNA nucleotides, so it seemed more appropriate somehow...
          • mbreese 13y ago
            I missed the fact that you were referring to "GCU". That was a little too subtle for my simple mind. :)
• Silhouette 13y ago
  Doesn't Google Chrome run under %AppData% in a default (non-MSI) install? Yes, and from a security point of view it should be treated as hostile accordingly. There is no need to actively circumvent Windows security like this. Firefox, among many other examples, is quite capable of automatically updating itself using a proper Windows service mechanism. It's long past time that Google were called out on this one. Not only is it a potential security risk, it also interferes with backups of %AppData%, which is generally an area of Windows PCs that you do want to save regularly in case of disasters.
  • mattmanser 13y ago
    I thought it was so you didn't need admin to install it?
    • Silhouette 13y ago
      It probably is, but that doesn't make it any better as an idea. There is a good reason why every decent operating system's security model in the past few years has segmented this kind of functionality so only people with elevated privileges can do it.
      • Volpe 13y ago
        And that good reason is? EDIT: If I want to run/update something (Chrome) in Userland, why should an OS security model stop me? My guess is, Microsoft have successfully confused a common business requirement with a security one.
        • keeperofdakeys 13y ago
          No, it's a required security feature that goes back decades in some operating systems. You need to be able to trust the code that runs on your system, and to do that you want to ensure only admin can install things. Of course, Windows has now partially solved that with UAC. Unfortunately you can never know if you can trust the software or not though. However this does stop malware from secretly running without your permission, since it would require a UAC prompt to run. Then we get into uneducated users.
• missing_cipher 13y ago
  I'm also seeing Dropbox, uTorrent and PunkbusterB in %appdata% according to fekberg's command.