Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Chrome Upgrades IT

Google Chrome Is Getting Automatic Blocking of Malicious Downloads 138

An anonymous reader writes "Google today announced Chrome is getting an automatic download blocking feature for malware. Google has already added the new functionality to the latest build of Chrome Canary. All versions of Chrome will soon automatically block downloads and let you know in a message at the bottom of your screen. You will be able to "Dismiss" the message, although it's not clear if you will be able to stop or revert the block."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Chrome Is Getting Automatic Blocking of Malicious Downloads

Comments Filter:
  • Bah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @01:59PM (#45292555) Homepage

    Yet they wont let me disable the god forsaken auto complete in the address bar. I completely ditched Chrome because of that damned evil annoyance.

  • by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .tzzagem.> on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:06PM (#45292617) Homepage

    Chrome already blocks malicious downloads. Not sure how this is new. Maybe it's a more advanced version of the existing feature.

    The existing feature already looks like the current screenshot, except the text might be different. And yes, you can allow downloads using the drop down on the right.

    Possibly this is integration of anti-virus hooks? I think the existing version might just use a Google list of known safe and dangerous downloads.

  • Great news! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sootman ( 158191 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:07PM (#45292629) Homepage Journal

    Now, can you let me choose for myself which filetypes are safe or not? For my job, I have to download many PDFs (up to 100 at a time) and Chrome asks me EVERY... SINGLE... FUCKING... TIME "This type of file can harm your computer. Do you want to keep <filename> anyway?"

    LISTEN IDIOT: These PDFs come from a trusted source. Yes, I have to download them. No, I don't want to view them in the browser right this second. Also, I'm on a Mac, and also also, I don't use Acrobat, and also also also, this is my work machine, and IF anything would happen to it, I'd let I.T. blow it away and re-image it if needed. LET ME DOWNLOAD THE GODDAMN FILE. Every few months I search to see if there's a way to disable this, and so far I've come up empty.

    Needless to say, I don't use Chrome for this part of my job.

  • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:16PM (#45292733) Homepage Journal

    Well. There goes your downloads of TOR and Transmission... What's blocked next?

    Maybe XBMC. Those plugins are GATT and SOPA problems just waiting to happen.

    If people want to cut the cable? Just wait for Google to "steal" the XBMC source for GoogTV, like they raped Linux for Android.

    The moral of this speculative fable? Google should be making software, not policy decisions.

  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:18PM (#45292761) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft has tried something similar [microsoft.com]. Each distinct executable has to build up a reputation over some long period before IE SmartScreen stops flagging it as "not commonly downloaded". The only way to make an executable build up reputation faster is to apply for an Authenticode software publisher certificate from a commercial CA ($$$) and keep it renewed ($$$ per year), which lets good reputation spill over from other executables from the same publisher that have earned good reputation. This especially messes with the release early, release often mentality of amateur free software developers who might not be willing to form an LLC and buy and maintain an Authenticode certificate.
  • by Riddler Sensei ( 979333 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:38PM (#45292981)

    God, that sounds like extortion.

    "It'd be a shame if we told the user that your software might maybe sorta kinda be malware."

  • by Peter Kingsbury ( 3046159 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @02:56PM (#45293155)

    ...software contrary to security (NSA) interests?

    This is 2013. Fixed that for ya.

  • Re:Bah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jeff Flanagan ( 2981883 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @03:04PM (#45293215)
    >nobody sane would want to turn that off

    They're approximately correct with that. Autocomplete is a huge help, and only a problem for people in bad situations where they need to hide what URLs they access or their search strings. If someone is going to give you trouble over your auto-complete, get that person out of your life.
  • Re:Bah... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 31, 2013 @04:20PM (#45293959)

    If it's sensitive, why the fuck are you even saving those URLs? Did you know that all major browsers have implemented private mode for this purpose since a long time ago?

  • Re:Bah... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lgw ( 121541 ) on Thursday October 31, 2013 @05:28PM (#45294651) Journal

    Sure, that's one workaround. He found an easier workaround - switch to a less arrogant browser.

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Working...