back to article Google taking action against disguised code in Chrome Web Store

Weary of dealing with malicious Chrome extensions and user complaints, Google is asking developers to lock down their accounts and tightening up security in its Chrome Web Store. On Monday, the Chocolate Factory announced a handful of changes to reduce the amount of dodgy code in its marketplace and to make the hijacking of …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google taking action against disguised code

    Just not its own 'disguised code' in Chome or wherever etc etc :-

    ---------

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/25/chrome_69_google_cookies/

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/24/google_chrome_auto_login/

    ---------

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/24/google_data_flows_study/

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/26/google_pixel_2_xl_what_it_means_now/?page=4

    1. Chris Hills

      Re: Google taking action against disguised code

      If you want to see just how deep Google's tentacles run in Chrome, take a look at the github project https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium

    2. J27

      Re: Google taking action against disguised code

      That's completely unrelated, Google has taken no methods to disguise their code in Chromium. It's right there in the open-source repository and well-documented. This is about code that's disguised to look innocuous, but isn't. You not bothering to look isn't the same as Google intentionally hiding things.

  2. //DLBL SYSRES

    Again...

  3. trevorde Silver badge

    Easier option

    Release app for iOS

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not sure why, but I've recently moved to Firefox ...

    It's not quite like-for-like. Seems to have a very "Firefox" way of doing some things, and not only a smaller selection of extensions, but the annoying fact that most extensions won't work with the current Firefox (Quantum).

    Mozilla had been be careful of that last. It's exactly how Windows Mobile became irrelevant.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not sure why, but I've recently moved to Firefox ...

      If you like Chromium way, but without Google, then I recommend Opera. I've been switching between Opera and Firefox for some years and cannot decide which one I like better.

  5. Naich

    Unreadable code

    What about code that isn't actually obfuscated, but it just written so badly that no one can understand it? Asking for a friend.

    1. Thomas 6

      Re: Unreadable code

      I think I've worked with your friend

      1. Anonymous Bullard

        Re: Unreadable code

        I think you're talking about me.

    2. Flakk
      Pint

      Re: Unreadable code

      Naich in before I could quip:

      "As the number of developers approaches infinity, the likelihood that bad code will be misidentified as obfuscated code approaches 1."

      1. Mike Moyle

        Re: Unreadable code

        "As the number of developers approaches infinity, the likelihood that bad code will be misidentified as obfuscated code approaches 1."

        Well, if Google can't tell the difference and bans both of them then, really, everybody wins, right?

  6. karlkarl Silver badge

    It's not Google's job to police malicious code. They are not our masters.

    It is just them being creepy in a passive aggressive kinda way.

    1. Spanners Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: It's not Google's job to police malicious code. They are not our masters.

      People who police things are not my masters.

      In my country, the police are part of a group called "public servants". They police all sorts of malicious stuff - burglars, murderers, thieves and so on. This does not make them my masters.

      Do you consider the police around you to be your masters or even wannabe masters? If they are your masters, you live in a police state.

      1. onefang

        Re: It's not Google's job to police malicious code. They are not our masters.

        "If they are your masters, you live in a police state."

        I don't live in a police state, yet. The way the Aussie politicians are going it wont be long until I do though.

  7. Mystic Megabyte
    Linux

    For general browsing I use Firefox but it's locked down so some sites don't work properly. I only use Chromium for banking and one private streaming video site, that's it! I don't know how they can target adverts at me although I had planned to only click on obscenely expensive bling that I don't want.

    Does NoScript work now? It went all weird a while ago.

    1. Flakk

      NoScript works just fine. It was in poor shape when Firefox 57 was released. It's better now. You may find this handy.

      https://www.ghacks.net/2018/08/13/noscript-guide-for-firefox-57/

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    minification is not about obfuscation

    Obfuscation is just a side effect of minification. Minification is about reducing the size of code so it takes up less bandwidth. Shortening all the long names naturally makes code more difficult to read and sometimes weird syntax can save you a character or two.

    I've used obfuscation libraries on production code at work, it actually makes things a little bigger if you check all the options (because it starts to include extra crap to make it more obfuscated).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like