Chrome's turning 10, here's what's new
blog.google
blog.google
https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/08/30/changing-...
I'm almost 100% Firefox at this point. I trust Mozilla.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
But, if you want to use a poorly maintained, out of date and insecure fork of Firefox privacy reasons (as if Mozilla is somehow terrible in this area!) then go for it, but understand you're sacrificing your security for no particularly good reason whilst simultaneously reducing their impact in influencing the design of a privacy orientated web.
> ... We launched an ad blocker to keep you safe from malicious and annoying ads ...
It's a start, at least. I still use uBlock Origin until Chrome gets their game together with ad blocking.
> ... We launched an ad blocker to keep you safe from ads that are not part of google ad-network ...
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95606
"Export: To the right of "Saved Passwords," click More : > Export passwords"
One less reason to use a password manager now.
Seriously.
Also, what's with the smaller icon on the start page?
Not a good change for me.
Never liked how this browser forces updates down your throat including "new looks" without any choice. Feels like software I have zero control over, if every time I open it, a new version of itself downloads and installs without my permission. Google enjoys forcing itself on users regularly without consent. Which is creepy when put like that.
There's a case to be made that one could develop security updates separate from "look-and-feel" updates, but I think, sadly, it's a weak case; it's all one software package, and look-and-feel changes can impact security and vise-versa. I don't think the system would actually be more secure if Chrome tried to maintain various mini-forks of versions with different look-and-feels.
I'm curious though: how is this handled in your browser of choice? IE updates look-and-feel all the time and so does Mozilla. Perhaps it's the auto-updating that's the issue? But we already know what happens if the auto-updating is removed from the equation: the web has to collectively support IE6 approximately forever.
In my case, I don't even have that Google Update registry key you've linked to. So they're doing some other nasty hacky thing to silently install new versions over itself without my permission.
Google REALLY doesn't want people disabling auto updates. It's like other things they do, they don't hesitate to build-in arrogant patterns in order to herd everyone into the same behaviour.
Like with the account chooser, it's no longer possible to simply sign out of Google and be properly signed out, so your name doesn't appear on the sign in page. Google remembers your login and shows your email address on the sign in page, even though you're logged out. This is Google REALLY not wanting anyone to sign out.
- 4 critical, 5 high vulns fixed in 61.
- 2 critical, 7 high in 60.
- 4 critical, 4 high in 59.
Your feelings on not liking security updates 'forced down your throat' are kind of immaterial. They absolutely should be. And that's the price you pay. Not a huge one, by any means.
1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities...
> Every single release contains a lot of nasty bugs fixed in various places.
Oh please. "Nasty bugs fixed in various places"? You're not replying to your mum here.
Nothing, ever, should be forced down anyone's throat. Your attitude is what is making software become some kind of time-locked online service, even when it's installed on our machines.
I will update software when I choose to, not when some commercially driven product manager decides to.
How can you be so naive at the motivation behind taking away control of software installs on your machine? You think they're doing it to "keep you safe" because "your safety is their number one priority". Wow.
Go ahead and let tech giants control your life at the granular level, but I will choose to control software updates on my machine, thanks.
And yeah I would describe multiple remote code execution vulnerabilities that can be triggered with pretty much no user interaction as 'nasty'.
You can find out just how vulnerable you are if you'd like, just find whatever crusty Firefox (or better yet a crusty fork!) version you are running here[1] and take a look.
1. https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/452/3264/1/Mozilla-F...
Security updates should be separate to whatever cosmetic product enhancements, feature additions or removal they push everyone to swallow. It's a basic principle to separate those concerns. The whole reason everyone advocates modular architecture is so we can update one area without it screwing over something else. Apparently "new look tabs we think you're going to love" can't be uncoupled from fixing a "critical security vulnerability". Anyone who fails to question that is drunk on kool-aid.
You can be run over by a bus if you don't look both ways. Quick... everyone must install proximity alarms up their rear ends immediately, no opt out possible.
Microsoft, Google, etc as a result see higher uptake of their new product offerings getting installed on machines much sooner than if the fear and urgency wasn't underlined.
Windows now seems to allow software vendors to silently install updates, and re-install "update processes" that persist even when you explicitly remove them via msconfig, and opt out of them via the app's settings. Dropbox and others now behave like malware. That's on Microsoft for allowing this aggressive and silent update enforcement.
Keep the fear levels high, and user control options low because it's good for business. We'll sell it as "good for security".
I run recent versions of browsers, and obviously care about security. I just don't panic about being on some nightly cutting edge version out of fear of being compromised by the "critical" security holes built into the product cycle. I look both ways before crossing road. Those who don't shouldn't impact my freedom to cross the road without help from a mandatory rectal alarm.
Then I realized, why start at all.
Just like all of the websites that you browse, you can't have control over the styles or the updates that someone pushes to their servers, forcing you to download the latest page and install the latest service workers without your permission.
Software I decide to install on my machine, is under my control. I could update it, re-install it, delete it, change it.
I don't appreciate this mindset that software is like a "website" that is controlled by someone else. If that's what you want, then that's your preference.
I do understand Google in this case and support their decision though. And if someone wants more control, fortunately they can always use Firefox.