Bad news for Chrome Users! "Google cripples all Chrome add-ons from outside its app store"

[dcs18]

'We can't have nice things' because 'total jerks' took advantage of loophole, says Chrome software engineer

Google took a final step in its years-long scheme to aggressively lock down Chrome by crippling all add-ons because of abuse of a loophole left in the rules last year.

On Wednesday, Google began requiring all extensions, also called add-ons, to originate from the Chrome Web Store for all builds of the Windows browser. The Chrome Web Store is Google's official distribution channel for Chrome and Chrome OS add-ons, apps and themes.

The same restriction will take effect on Chrome for OS X in July.

In May 2014, Google disabled most add-ons but let developers opt out by excluding its "dev" channel from the policy. The dev channel is one of three Google maintains and has the roughest edges of the trio, which also includes "beta" and "stable" channels.

"Unfortunately, we've since observed malicious software forcing users into the developer channel in order to install unwanted off-store extensions," said Jake Leichtling, extensions platform product manager, on the Chromium blog. "Affected users are left with malicious extensions running on a Chrome channel they did not choose."

Businesses can hide their extensions on the store from the public at large -- or continue to use group policies to offer the add-ons to their workforce from their own servers -- and developers will still be able to initiate "in-line" installs from their website, but only if the add-on is also in the store.

Google has been tightening the screws on add-ons for nearly three years, claiming that unauthorized and malicious extensions are a leading complaint from users and a major cause of problems with Chrome.

Leichtling said the rules worked: Google recorded a 75% drop in help requests for uninstalling unwanted add-ons since it first began disabling extensions not retrieved from the Chrome store.

By forcing add-on developers to publish their work in the store, Google has essentially adopted the "walled-garden" model popularized by Apple's mobile app ecosystem.

As happened a year ago, some users objected to the lockdown.

"Why isn't this opt in?" asked Joseph Hicks in a comment appended to Leichtling's blog. "I appreciate you want to help people, but I have no interest in your walled garden."

"The bottom line is that Google is going to force everything through their own vetting process, taking MY freedom to do MY OWN vetting," echoed Brian Covey. "I use a plug-in that is not available in the Chrome store. If I am ... only able to use whatever Google has deemed appropriate I'm afraid that will spell the end of Chrome for me."

A senior software engineer on the Chrome UI (user interface) team defended his company's policies in the comments section. "I wish that there were fewer restrictions on things in the store," said Peter Kasting. "And I wish that malware authors were not such total jerks and didn't work so hard to screw over our users, forcing us to begin locking things down in response. This is why we can't have nice things."

source

[Xen]

Mozilla Team is doing the same in its Firefox line.

Extension signing is now very much in force, the testing began in the last version of the nightly (version 40)

Only addons that are listed at AMO can be installed on the Stable and Beta Realease Channels in the next month or 2.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing

[dcs18]

The Firefox add-on signing restriction is proposed to be brought into effect only at the V41 release (long time away) - moreover, it will not be absolute and 100% unbreakable like Chrome (that is the beauty of Firefox.) :)

Worse come to worse, in case no workaround is found, Firefox Users can always count on some new add-on or the other to be introduced to resolve the issue - look how Classic Theme Restorer solved the Australis problem. :showoff:

[ande]

This is not acceptable, all add-ons I have are offline, not originating from Store, and all communication from Browser to Store are, um, blocked.

We all know this isn't about malware...

[dcs18]

By forcing add-on developers to publish their work in the store, Google has essentially adopted the "walled-garden" model popularized by Apple's mobile app ecosystem.

The above statement highlights the hidden Google agenda.

[steven36]

Add-ons have already been locked like this in stable and betas since May 2014 for one year . Only thing has changed now there going to do it on the dev channel now. And Mozilla is heading in the same direction what they plan to do in 41 was the same thing Google done one year ago . They always copy things Goggle does every since they added rapid release . Google use to even give Mozilla most of its funding tell they deiced to start to break away from them a few months ago. But the damage they have done from years of taking on Goggle policies are not going improve overnight. You may can use add ons or tweaks to overcome most of the changes but they should stop doing every Google does and they should of never copied them in the 1st place.

[dcs18]

This new and high-handed Google policy is gonna bring grief to Advanced Users who do not necessarily use add-ons from the Chrome Web Store - n00bs who obediently use only add-ons available at the Store wont be affected and would therefore support the Google decision.

It will soon be very easy to differentiate between the kinds of Users, here - Advanced Users will protest and n00bs will support the Google move (mark my words - let's just watch this and other Google topics for more.)

[steven36]

The only thing will change all these old 3rd party sties that store outdated Google Chrome Extensions and malicious extensions , ads and malware be on board these 3rd party sites will no longer work on dev you not been able to install on Stable or beta for a year unless you unpack them . You will still be able to use unpacked ones because you still can on stable from github.. You just want be able to install them normally in devs anymore from 3rd party sites. I don't see how this hurts anyone but malware makers . It don't hurt the devs and Google code has updated were most old ones don't work on Chrome anymore anyways . Chrome store unless it changes have always approved addons they don't mind pretty fast anyways.

The way it use to be before May 2014 when they changed this in stable a lot browsers based on chromium that were not Google you would have go to somewhere like softpedia or Cnet or some not good site to get add-ons . So while it may have bothered some users that they to have to unpack some old something that may still work that there store didn't like . It helped users that use browsers based on chromium that were not Google . These other browsers added support for Google Chrome store and we no longer have to search all over the internet because we don't use the Google brand.

One mans lost is another mans gain . :lol:

[dcs18]

Won't be surprising to find a few Users now switching loyalties from Chrome to Firefox (or some other browser of their choice.) :think:

[steven36]

I never used Google Chrome other than for testing , I used Iron even back when i had to search to find add-ons and now I use Slimjet but I doubt this will have much effect on the mindset of Google chrome users . there in denial . Now Google Chrome has this problem with ruining its users laptop batteries dead and what you post here about add ons is not even new its been in effect for the general audience for over a year and still is always the number 1 or number 2 used browser every month according to marketshare .

[dcs18]

The only Users in denial are the usual n00bs!

[steven36]

Goggle Chrome owns like 50% of the marketshare that's like calling half the internet noobs . :lol:

[dcs18]

I don't care what they own (as long as they don't own me) - some of the Users of their browsers don't even know the spelling of Google (those n00bs spell it Goggle - just launch a search for Goggle to find the market share of n00bs, at this Board.) :tehe:

[steven36]

Well at lest we agree on something they don't own me ether But I don't agree about the part there all noobs .. I just fell many were mislead . Even some of my old mates from years ago who swore they would never use Google Chrome now use it . But like 30% still use IE witch has no add-ons much at all .

27% of us use other browsers not listed as the big 3 ^_^

Its according to what your looking at though

https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0

Here Firefox and IE are running close with Chrome on top last month

http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-ww-monthly-201504-201505

You can look at it for a year its not changed much

http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-ww-monthly-201404-201504

[dcs18]

Great, so let's agree to disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . about Google Chrome. B)

[CODYQX4]

What about Firefox? I haven't looked into it, but aren't they opening up the extension signing can of worms as well?

I use both browsers from time to time, and they're both trying to tighten the screws on extensions.

[Fallon]

Chrome is constantly offered as an install with free software. Considering that Microsoft Internet Explorer is on the way out, Chrome really is the leading browser.
A walled garden model not only can limit available software, but also access to that software. (If Microsoft does something similar for Windows, the software world could change forever). A small difference can matter. Chrome is not an open source browser. Chromium is. And Firefox of course.

[dcs18]

I use both browsers from time to time, and they're both trying to tighten the screws on extensions.

It is always good for both parties when the screws are tightened (not limited to just add-ons) - however, there should also be some provision for manual override, for Users (especially, when adverse effects accompany the decision.)

What about Firefox? I haven't looked into it, but aren't they opening up the extension signing can of worms as well?

Well Mozilla is also set to make add-on signing compulsory with the release of the V41 - however ATM, the nightly V41 does not seem to have this restriction. :think:

In the past Mozilla too, has made some stupid decisions like the one being discussed here (by Google) - they dared to discontinue the x64-bit flavor of Firefox. That decision caused such a loud and wide outcry, that Mozilla was forced to resume and then extend (promote) the x64-bit production from the Nightly to Beta (expect the x64-bit to arrive as a stable release, sooner than later.) Mozilla listens to it's User base - Google does not (they probably feel - they do not need to.) :dunno:

The basic difference between Chrome and Firefox is that without add-ons, Chrome (like almost every other browser) chews Firefox - but, with add-ons, Firefox rules over the browser kingdom. In short, Firefox is hopelessly dependent on the add-on community and any such despotic decision made by Mozilla shall be countered immediately, by some add-on Developer or the other (check out the example at post # 4.)

Worse comes to worse, if the proposed Firefox add-on restriction shall not be able to be overcome or bypassed I am sure Users would switch loyalties to other Firefox based alternatives (available abundantly.) <_<

[CODYQX4]

I use both browsers from time to time, and they're both trying to tighten the screws on extensions.

It is always good for both parties when the screws are tightened (not limited to just add-ons) - however, there should also be some provision for manual override, for Users (especially, when adverse effects accompany the decision.)

What about Firefox? I haven't looked into it, but aren't they opening up the extension signing can of worms as well?

Well Mozilla is also set to make add-on signing compulsory with the release of the V41 - however ATM, the nightly V41 does not seem to have this restriction. :think:

In the past Mozilla too, has made some stupid decisions like the one being discussed here (by Google) - they dared to discontinue the x64-bit flavor of Firefox. That decision caused such a loud and wide outcry, that Mozilla was forced to resume and then extend (promote) the x64-bit production from the Nightly to Beta (expect the x64-bit to arrive as a stable release, sooner than later.) Mozilla listens to it's User base - Google does not (they probably feel - they do not need to.) :dunno:

The basic difference between Chrome and Firefox is that without add-ons, Chrome (like almost every other browser) chews Firefox - but, with add-ons, Firefox rules over the browser kingdom. In short, Firefox is hopelessly dependent on the add-on community and any such despotic decision made by Mozilla shall be countered immediately, by some add-on Developer or the other (check out the example at post # 4.)

Worse comes to worse, if the proposed Firefox add-on restriction shall not be able to be overcome or bypassed I am sure Users would switch loyalties to other Firefox based alternatives (available abundantly.) <_<

Both browsers should be capable of being forked if necessary, but it's a steaming pile of BS if I have to use a Chromium/Firefox Fork because both remove my option in the misguided attempt that not allowing extensions will protect noobs.

If people install the smilies, the malware will patch the damn checks out if it just has to run an extension, but you don't need a browser extension if you've got root/admin access already.

That's why I find it completely stupid.

Firefox needs to hurry up on that x64. Funny enough, all browsers except Chrome were x64 on OS X and Chrome is now. So OS X is all x64, but not Windows. Meanwhile there is an x64 Chrome and the glue eating IE has been x64 for awhile.

[dcs18]

I use both browsers from time to time, and they're both trying to tighten the screws on extensions.

It is always good for both parties when the screws are tightened (not limited to just add-ons) - however, there should also be some provision for manual override, for Users (especially, when adverse effects accompany the decision.)

What about Firefox? I haven't looked into it, but aren't they opening up the extension signing can of worms as well?

Well Mozilla is also set to make add-on signing compulsory with the release of the V41 - however ATM, the nightly V41 does not seem to have this restriction. :think:

In the past Mozilla too, has made some stupid decisions like the one being discussed here (by Google) - they dared to discontinue the x64-bit flavor of Firefox. That decision caused such a loud and wide outcry, that Mozilla was forced to resume and then extend (promote) the x64-bit production from the Nightly to Beta (expect the x64-bit to arrive as a stable release, sooner than later.) Mozilla listens to it's User base - Google does not (they probably feel - they do not need to.) :dunno:

The basic difference between Chrome and Firefox is that without add-ons, Chrome (like almost every other browser) chews Firefox - but, with add-ons, Firefox rules over the browser kingdom. In short, Firefox is hopelessly dependent on the add-on community and any such despotic decision made by Mozilla shall be countered immediately, by some add-on Developer or the other (check out the example at post # 4.)

Worse comes to worse, if the proposed Firefox add-on restriction shall not be able to be overcome or bypassed I am sure Users would switch loyalties to other Firefox based alternatives (available abundantly.) <_<

Both browsers should be capable of being forked if necessary, but it's a steaming pile of BS if I have to use a Chromium/Firefox Fork because both remove my option in the misguided attempt that not allowing extensions will protect noobs.

If people install the smilies, the malware will patch the damn checks out if it just has to run an extension, but you don't need a browser extension if you've got root/admin access already.

That's why I find it completely stupid.

Firefox needs to hurry up on that x64. Funny enough, all browsers except Chrome were x64 on OS X and Chrome is now. So OS X is all x64, but not Windows. Meanwhile there is an x64 Chrome and the glue eating IE has been x64 for awhile.

My thoughts, exactly!

[Xen]

Mozilla Team is doing the same in its Firefox line.

Extension signing is now very much in force, the testing began in the last version of the nightly (version 40)

Only addons that are listed at AMO can be installed on the Stable and Beta Realease Channels in the next month or 2.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Addons/Extension_Signing

The Firefox add-on signing restriction is proposed to be brought into effect only at the V41 release (long time away) - moreover, it will not be absolute and 100% unbreakable like Chrome (that is the beauty of Firefox.) :)

Worse come to worse, in case no workaround is found, Firefox Users can always count on some new add-on or the other to be introduced to resolve the issue - look how Classic Theme Restorer solved the Australis problem. :showoff:

Yes you are right and that is where Firefox overpowers Chrome. If you read the link in my post, you will see that it applies only to stable and beta releases. Developer and nightly builds will have the option to turn on or off this functionality. Similarly, it won't arrive in the ESR version till v45 and that is a long long time for the developer to either get the addon signed or for the consumer to look for an alternative addon. Also, the customized builds(Waterfox, Cyberfox, Palemoon,etc.) will have the choice whether they want to follow this model or no, till now they are undecided. Mozilla also plans to unveil unbranded stable and beta releases which will have this signature check turned off.

In Nightly, at present you only get a warning saying the addon might be dangerous.

You can enable the signature check in Nightly by toggling the value of the following entry in about:config

xpinstall.signatures.required

If set to false, you will just get warnings on your addons as shown above but the addon will continue to work without any problem.

But if the same entry is set to true, then the signature check works and disables the addon completely.