Chrome, Firefox pull very unstylish Stylish invasive browser plugin

Re: Problem when software changes hands

"It is annoying when a popular software changes hands, sometimes the new owner totally ruin the software to make it bloatware and phone home with all sorts of data. "

When *any* business changes hands from the original owner who grew it, the new owners usually want their ROI as fast as possible. The original owner is probably in profit and doing well when they sell it, but the new owners, by definition, are saddled with debt. They almost always immediately start to cut costs and corners or do stuff to maximise income from all possible source.

Re: Problem when software changes hands

Visio, Skype, WhatsApp, Instagram, GoodReads, IMDB, YouTube, Borland... Maybe Github?

All the software Oracle got from buying Sun.

Xenix, Suse ...

It's a very long list.

Re: Developers becoming jerks.

It's more likely marketing PHBs abusing users and getting caught. Someone had to tell the code wranglers to do this. Most code wranglers have enough to do without adding more work. Also, the core wranglers may have told indirectly to do it or walk the plank.

Re: Developers becoming jerks.

Nope.

It is a standard play at the moment. Buy something popular, reuse the name, ship malware.

In any case, I am surprised the new "developer" has not taken on Google on "competition" grounds for Chrome. I would not be surprised to see their name pop up on a complaint to Eu or something initiated by the US state attorneys.

Re: While the software that has been removed is bad, I have issues...

Conceptually it's a Chicken and Egg problem, with the "Free Speech" mantra, but in reality most people are too ill informed to understand if something is malicious. Hence the approach that is taken.

Therefore expertise is required, my issue with it is that opinion of expertise could be abused.

Re: While the software that has been removed is bad, I have issues...

i'm not sure that a commercial organization should be allowed to determine what I can and can't run on my device. And as a browser supplier, these organizations are increasingly in a position to determine this.

That seems like a bit of a strange attitude TBH. Your virus checker provider is a commercial organization that determines what you can and can't run on your device, and you're perfectly happy for them to do that (I assume, but feel free to set me straight otherwise). Mozilla/Google removing extensions judged to be malicious from their app stores and official delivery mechanisms is them acting in an equivalent role.

If you're determined to run malware-filled software, you're free to obtain the extensions from outside of the official app stores and sideload them. Google et al aren't controlling what you run on your machine, they are controlling what they distribute through their channels, and I personally don't see the problem with that.

Re: While the software that has been removed is bad, I have issues...

"i'm not sure that a commercial organization should be allowed to determine what I can and can't run on my device. And as a browser supplier, these organizations are increasingly in a position to determine this."

Someone has to decide where to draw the malware line. How complaints are dealt with is the real measure of whether it's working well or not. eg transparent complaints procedure, specific reasons for rejection, appeals procedure and re-listing if appeal upheld or the reasons for the de-listing have been fixed.

Additionally, as a "store" listing the extensions, it's their reputation on the line if they are serving up malware unchecked.

Re: Don't Firefox and Chrome check the extensions behaviour?

There probably is something but it won't be a human reading the code reverse engineering what it does and checking it's compliant with the privacy policy.

It'll be something similar to anti-virus software. Heuristics can pick up some nasty code, but mostly it's about producing signatures of already-in-the-wild viruses and making sure they don't get executed again - or in the case of a browser plugin library, making sure someone doesn't upload it again.

Re: Don't Firefox and Chrome check the extensions behaviour?

No. Neither do app stores or any other commercial software distributors. They scan for viruses, blatant ToS violations, etc, but not bad behavior.

It's not black or white, "safe" or "malware". The lion's share of software falls in a grey area: exploitative, dishonest, incomplete, unreliable, and/or insecure. Often it's due to lack of skill and experience, but even the best programmers make mistakes which can be exploited by malware. Especially in ultra-complex software like web browsers.

So you really can't trust anything. Especially browsers and extensions.

Re: Don't Firefox and Chrome check the extensions behaviour?

They do some checks, but they're mostly automated. A common way to slip past them is to either include the malware in a later update (which often isn't checked as stringently), or include a mechanism that downloads it after the app is installed. That last one is a big no-no in the Chrome store, though -- you're not supposed to download and run code from outside the extension package.

Re: Stylus

Thanks for pointing out Stylus, I shall migrate.

One of my prime reasons for using Stylish is to read El Reg without the gratuitous headline images.