5 ms·
Google will block local extensions in Chrome 33 for Windows
- batoure 13y agoFixed article title: Here is a topic that will impact you for 20 seconds until you google the problem and switch your browser to developer mode here are some words that will draw you in; Google!! Chrome!! Doom!!
- eterm 13y agoDon't be an ass, defaults matter.
- ehutch79 13y agothey do, but this is a good one. If you don't know how to switch to developer mode, you probably should not be running random extensions.
- eterm 13y agoWhat about extensions that I've had installed for a long time, installed from the webstore but have since been removed or updated to versions I don't want? It's not about not knowing how to switch to developer mode, it's about the fact that everywhere is putting up higher and higher walled gardens. Sure, it makes sense for most people, but it's not the direction I like to see the internet go in.
- andybak 13y agoThen switch on developer mode?
- maxerickson 13y agoIf local extension adoption is already low, the safer default is probably the better choice.
- batoure 13y agoYou are over assuming the point of the comment. I find article titles to be incredibly misleading at times and it is frustrating and this was as good an opportunity as any to vent. I believe that segmenting extensions in this way is excellent with the primary added element of stopping installers from adding something to your browser in the first place that you may not want. I feel like "Google encapsulating extensions to protect entry level users" would have been a much more honest title for this article instead it uses words like "block" to make it feel like something is being taken away when really this is probably how it should have been setup in the first place.
- davidgerard 13y agoNote that Google already removed AdBlockPlus from the Android store; don't expect it in the Chrome browser one.
- spindritf 13y agoWhat do you mean? It's in the chrome webstore https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/adblock-plus/cfhdo... I'm Firefox all the way but let's not spread FUD.
- davidgerard 13y agoThat is good to see. I don't expect it to last.
- Navarr 13y agoIt's been there for months if not years at this point.
- ehutch79 13y agoWithout adblocking in chrome i would immediately switch to firefox. Too many drive by installs try to happen without it.
- JohnTHaller 13y agoIt's in the Chrome store right now. But I'd wager it will be removed at some point in the future.
- atonse 13y agoMaybe AdBlock is putting a dent in their numbers enough that they're willing to do this?
- natdempk 13y agoFrom my experience remediating machines at a university support shop, we see far more that have crap addons installed that hijack search and inject intrusive ads into every site. They're never installed through the Chrome App Store, so I'm guessing Google is trying to combat things like this where the end user installs a coupon finding program and their browser gets taken over as a result.
- andybak 13y agoHow does this affect AdBlock? This only affects extensions that aren't in the Chrome Web Store for some reason.
- Houshalter 13y agoIt might if they decide to eventually remove it from the store.
- octopus 13y agoAdBlock is in Chrome Store ... so it will keep running as before.
- rquirk 13y agoWhen/if Google remove AdBlock from the extension store, then you'll know it was the plan all along.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- iambateman 13y agoBrowser extensions are under-used. The average consumer could do so much more with their browsers than just install Adblock. Edit: I mean to say the development community hasn't explained the benefits or come up with interesting use-cases. Or at least not very loudly. ;)
- ah- 13y agoDon't leave us hanging, what do you have in mind?
- iambateman 13y agoTell me if this exists...Imagine a developer tools "commit" interface, where you could make changes in the DOM or to CSS and then save them from the browser. Right now if I adjust a bunch of different elements, I have to remember each one and copy them by hand.
- KaoruAoiShiho 13y agoIt's built into developer tools already bro. Google it.
- dm2 13y agoI think this exists in the standard Dev Tools / inspector. Edit a CSS file in the Sources tab of the Dev Tools then right click and click Local Modifications. Also right click on the file (in the whitespace) and click Save. Then click History and you can see the exact changes that you made and even revert. I've never used it though, not sure how useful it is. There is also a Workspace feature in the Dev Tools options which might have something closer to what you are looking for.
- dm2 13y agoDev tools, password manager, chrome-to-phone, adblock, edit-this-cookie are all I've ever needed, and many of those I use with another Chrome profile (wonderful new feature if you haven't used it yet). Do you really want things like an FTP, file manager, text editor, or other extensions installed? They could easily introduce security vulnerabilities and will slow down your browsing experience (something that you want to be fast). I leave about 500 tabs open so more extensions are not something that I want to have locking up my browser. Many browser extensions ask for permissions such as viewing all web history, no thanks...
- wudf 13y agoThe grip tightens...
- andybak 13y agoOh please.
- zaraflan 13y agoExtensions are still a big malware vector so I can't see this as anything but a net win as long as developer mode remains available for power users.
- dmart 13y agoYep. I understand the resentment towards this decision, but anything that cuts down on the 10+ Conduit adware extensions I find myself uninstalling from clients' computers every day is fine by me. Some of these infected extensions already show up as being installed by enterprise policy, though, which the article states will not be affected. So I'm not sure how effective this will be in the long run.
- evilmoo 13y agoOnly this morning HN was going crazy over the 'walled garden' at Apple...
- eli 13y agoThis approach is a lot closer to Android. You actually can still run whatever you want... just the default security settings don't allow it.
- archgrove 13y agoWhich, for 99.99999% of actual users will mean they are blocked. Digging around in the guts to enable "Developer mode", with all the scary consequences, is not something users will (or should have to) do.
- andybak 13y agoClicking through a few pages of options is EXACTLY the level of discouragement needed for users who really shouldn't be touching such things.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- eli 13y agoHuh? Where does it say they're disabling developer mode? How else would one develop an extension?
- jpadkins 13y ago> I really don't get how abuse of a feature is grounds to remove a feature. If you do the right thing for your users first, this is what you do. You put user needs over developer needs.
- Houshalter 13y ago
- higherpurpose 13y agoWhy is this needed? Wasn't the move to only install local extensions by dragging and dropping on the extensions tab enough to prevent the vast majority of "installing infected extensions by mistake"? What security advantage does having to check a box for Developer Mode on the extension page offer over how it's done now, other than making it slightly harder and more confusing for the user himself to install local extensions? Google is just one step away from making me quit using Chrome. If they ban external extensions for good with a future Chrome release, that's it, I'm done. I'll start using either Firefox or Opera, and then convince everyone I know to use them, too, just like I did before with Chrome.
- royprins 13y agoThe advantage should be more in user experience, since this would essentially put a halt to bundled crapware. People who are willing to move to "Developer mode" will not be the people who will be confused in any way.
- higherpurpose 13y agoAnd how were people confused into dragging and dropping the extensions on the extension page before? That's what I'm saying. I see no security benefit over how it already works.
- randomfool 13y agoLocal applications can modify Chrome's settings and inject their own extensions with no involvement by the user. This change is targeted at preventing extensions that the user did not explicitly install.
- mathnode 13y agoThankfully "Cloud to Butt" is now in the chrome web store.
- moron4hire 13y agoAaaaand I just took Chrome off my list of browsers for a POS project I'm working on.
- Morphling 13y agoCan someone tell me what this changes? You can still run them in developer mode, right? Otherwise we couldn't develop our extensions, right?
- yonran 13y agoI believe local extensions will be disallowed on stable and beta channel on Windows, according to the blog post. I think this means that on the stable channel on Windows, there will no longer be a “Developer mode” in chrome://extensions. This is because Developer mode is simply a registry setting that malware on Windows can modify, so Chrome will no longer trust this setting. To develop extensions on Windows, I think you will have to switch to the dev or canary channel http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel http://www.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel Edit: changed “now” to “will be” for clarity. Thanks Navarr.
- Navarr 13y agoI believe this is misinformation. At the moment, there's a way for software to install Chrome extensions (not developer mode). They're removing this capability. You will probably still be able to run developer mode extensions
- judah 13y agoThis is a smart move. Crapware vendors have started installing Chrome extensions bundled with their crapware installers, hijacking browser home page and search page. The end result of this is that many of my non-technical family members end up with a hijacked Chrome experience. I've seen this only in the last year, increasingly so in the last few months. This move to outlaw extensions not in the Chrome Store will halt this behavior.
- Istof 13y agoThis is an old tactic that has been going on for more then 10 years with web browsers. Also, I doubt that you need an extension to change the homepage.
- graylights 13y agoThe problem with this is crapware vendors existed before extensions were available. They were dirty hack modifications to the programs. They would introduce all sorts of bugs and since they modified the actual software they were a pain to uninstall. If your cabin in the woods is getting broken into, you won't secure it by putting a lock on the front door. You'll just get robbed and have a broken window. The real problem is users accepting and running installers that install crapware. You effectively give it permission to do anything it wants.
- paulgb 13y agoThis is the best explanation of the move, but won't it just lead to crapware figuring out how to enable developer mode and continuing to install bad extensions?
- higherpurpose 13y agoWould you say the same about Microsoft not allowing apps outside of the Metro store, or Apple not allowing apps outside of the Mac store? I can only support such a move as long as there is still away to use them. If they completely ban external extensions, then I won't be supporting Chrome anymore, because I know it's only a matter of time before they ban Adblock then, or other apps they don't agree with.
- viach 13y agoThere seems to be a plan to start monetizing chrome extensions. That's good, i'm in the process of writing one.
- Spittie 13y agoI agree, Chrome shouldn't allow external application to automatically install extensions. There are few (none outside of the business/enterprise area?) cases where it's done for a good reason, and a lot of cases where it's done to install some adware/spyware. If I'm reading the article right, they'll also disable any extension that the user manually installed from a local .crx. I don't agree with this, just add a warning and allow it. To me, it feels like some sort of DRM. It doesn't help that developers have to pay a $5 fee to publish extensions in the Chrome Web Store. It's small, but not everyone is willing to/can pay it.
- Houshalter 13y agoAlso Google removes apps from the chrome store they don't like. Like Youtube Center and Uneddit Reddit. And even if the amount of money it costs is small, it's still a relatively large tax for something that could be free.
- MadManE 13y agoThis seems to me to be an interesting comparison to the political world. In this instance, we have Google and Apple, both doing essentially the same thing in different ways, but one of them is doing it slightly less than the other and demonizing their opponent over it. In the (U.S.) political world, we have Democrats and Republicans both doing essentially the same thing in a different way, and demonize the other for taking some aspect of it "too far". Maybe if we got used to having more than two choices, we wouldn't have to worry about this as much.
- Houshalter 13y agoIs there any way to stop this from happening? I have a lot of unofficial extensions. Should I just switch to another browser?