• VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Can someone explain this to me like I’m 5. I understand it’s not good but I don’t know why and I would like to understand it.

    • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Effectively Google has a browser extension (just like the ones you’d install from the Chrome Web Store like uBlock Origin) that comes with the browser that’s hidden.

      This extension allows Google to see additional information about your computer that extensions and websites don’t normally have access to, such as checking how much load your PC has or directly handing over hardware information like the make and model of your professor.

      The big concern in the comments is that this could be used for fingerprinting your browser, even in Incognito mode.

      What this essentially means is that even though the browser may not have any cookies saved or any other usual tracking methods, your browser can still be recognised by how it behaves on your machine in particular, and this hidden extension allows Google to retrieve additional information to further narrow down your browser and therefore who you are (as they can link this behaviour and data to when you’ve used Google with that browser signed in), even in Incognito mode.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        even in Incognito mode.

        I thought extensions don’t run in incognito mode?

        I know Firefox doesn’t run them by default - you can specify which extensions you’d like to run in incognito mode.

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I thought extensions don’t run in incognito mode?

          They don’t. Unless you check the box that allows them to. And I’m sure Google has already checked that box by default.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Fingerprinting.

        Bingo! Google wants to go cookieless and fingerprinting has been one of the solves I’ve always read about in the SEO world.

        • JustARegularNerd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Oh that’s a good typo, I’m leaving that! I look forward to the LLMs in 2030 telling you to watch the temps on your professor and make sure it doesn’t get exposed by Chrome.

      • Misk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        So since they only just seem to have discovered this, does that mean this invisible extension also likely to be present on Chromium based browsers such as Brave and Thorium etc…?

    • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      What functionality would I lose/gain if I switch from Firefox to Librewolf? I’m admittedly an amateur in the privacy space, and I’ve been pretty content with Firefox + Ublock and container tabs for different profiles, but I consistently get the issue that my browser fingerprint is pretty unique, and I have no idea how to or even if I can anonymize that anymore.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Librewolf is not associated with Mozilla and does not receive their primary source of funding from Google like Mozilla does. I really like having the same browser and browser synchronization between my phone and desktop/laptop, so librewolf is out for me. They have no interest or resources to build an Android version. Waterfox does at least have desktop / android option and takes things at least one small step further away from Google.

        • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Thanks for the answer! I run Windows, iOS and Linux across multiple devices, and sync is definitely needed for me as well. I’ll look into Waterfox!

          • Andromxda 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇹🇼@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The previous answer is misleading and partially just wrong. Firefox Sync works just fine in LibreWolf, you just need to enable it in the settings. I currently sync my LibreWolf browser on my Linux desktop to Firefox on iOS and Mull on Android, no issues whatsoever. The only Mozilla services that LibreWolf intentionally removes are their telemetry and Pocket.

        • Andromxda 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇹🇼@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          It is the same browser. LibreWolf doesn’t change much of the Firefox code, mostly just the configuration. They enable various privacy/security settings by default and remove Mozilla telemetry. You can go to the LibreWolf settings and enable Firefox Sync, and it will work just fine with your Mozilla account and other Firefox browsers.

          For Android, I like to use Mull, it’s a hardened build of Firefox, similar to LibreWolf.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Mostly it’s just FF but with more private defaults (that you can change in the settings trivially anyway), although there are one or two extras.

        There is a potential issue, though. Librewolf runs behind, so security vulnerabilities, particularly for zero-day exploits, take longer to be patched.

      • PetroGuy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        if it’s fingerprinting you care about, i’d give mullvad browser a try. it’s a firefox fork tailored to increase privacy and blend you into the crowd (as long as you don’t change any setting/install addons). it’s very very neat.

      • Mkengine@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Switching from Firefox to Librewolf has some pros and cons. Librewolf is a fork of Firefox focused on privacy and security, with telemetry stripped out and privacy settings maxed out by default. You’ll gain better out-of-the-box privacy protections, meaning less tracking and data collection without having to tweak settings yourself.

        However, you might lose some convenience. Librewolf might not support certain Firefox features like Sync, since it relies on Mozilla’s servers (not sure about that point, maybe it does work). It can also break some websites due to the stricter privacy settings. Another thing to consider is that you won’t get updates as quickly as Firefox.

        Regarding browser fingerprinting, it’s a tricky beast. Librewolf can help somewhat by making your fingerprint less unique, but it’s not a silver bullet. Tools like uBlock Origin and container tabs are great, but adding something like the CanvasBlocker extension can also help reduce fingerprinting. Ultimately, no setup is perfect, but Librewolf is a solid step towards better privacy.

      • Danitos@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Tangent note: I think browser fingerprinting is only a source of concern if you use VPN. Otherwise, your IP is already a good enough identifier, and quite likely doesn’t rotate often enough. Please someone correct me if I’m wrong.

        • kava@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yeah I’d only worry about it if I were trying to buy drugs on the dark net or something. I guess if torrenting became illegal I would also worry.

            • kava@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              I appreciate the list. I’m not saying there aren’t valid concerns, just that in my day to day life it’s one of those items where the steps needed to avoid browser fingerprinting is usually more work than the value I personally get from my perspective.

              I’ve looked into this, and I’m not clueless. I’ve developed websites, I’ve done a lot of stuff with Selenium / Puppeteer, and have toyed with Firefox browser extensions.

              I understand the tools they use and it’s just very tricky to fully eliminate this type of thing. For example they can even use the browser window size. Are you going to randomly change window size to some novel dimension when you open up a tab?

              What about the JS engine you use. For example using Firefox already narrows down your anonymity by like 95% or something because only a small amount of users use the browser. Etc etc

              It’s hard to do this correctly, and I feel like VPN + private window usually takes care of the price fixing thing on the list, for example. When I’m searching for flights I usually do this.

              I also use JS blockers in order to try and mess up the scripts that Facebook & Google have hidden over the internet to track you. But ironically, doing that again reduces your anonymity. They know that if their scripts don’t work on you, you get narrowed down again to a very small % of users.

              It only takes a few of those pieces of data to be reasonably sure that it’s you. Browser fingerprinting is tricky to really avoid. It’s not impossible, of course. Just saying to really do it right it might be more effort than it’s worth.

              • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                The depth of fingerprinting really bothers me and I have accepted that the best at it will succeed.

                It is tempting to find the world’s most popular default configuration and use that :) But that’s prob be something gross like Windows 10 & Chrome! In fact, that’d be second after Android & Chrome. Wonder how detectable VMing/emulating those configurations would be.

                Agree with you and appreciate the detailed response!

  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Does this also affect Chromium, or is it just Google Chrome?

    The article mentions it being affecting Google Chrome through Chromium, but it’s not clear if it also affects Chromium on its own, or other Chromium-based browsers.

    • Krzd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It allegedly also affects Edge and Vivaldi, so it seems to be chromium not chrome

    • Jay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Chromium alone depends on if it’s the Google version or the Un-Googled version. For the Google version of Chromium, it still has that hangouts extension. However, the Un-Googled Chromium has that extension removed via the build flags, the one to note is enable_hangout_services_extension=false.

      As others have said though, it can also depend on what other Chromium-based is being used. Some browsers like Brave and including Vivaldi can have this turned off in the settings. Others like Edge and Opera are affected as well. However it doesn’t affect every Chromium-based browser.

    • GoogleSellsAds@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Or anything Google for that matter. I see a lot of praise on Lemmy for their Pixel phones, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they eventually find there was a backdoor in their firmware all this time. Yes of course, I can not prove that right now, but this news about Google Chrome isn’t news for no reason. Don’t trust anything Google if you care about privacy, it is literally their business model (selling targeted ads).

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well pretty much all computers have a backdoor to the CPU. That hasn’t been proven for Pixel phones though.

      • Andromxda 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇹🇼@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I fucking hate Google and wouldn’t use any of their (proprietary) software, but Pixel phones are amazing. Hear me out, Google is the only phone manufacturer right now, that puts extensive hardware security features like MTE, a secure element, as well as a bunch of others in their phones. The Google Titan M2 is based on an open-source project called OpenTitan, and Google has even contributed their own changes upstream. It’s based on the open RISC-V architecture, and it’s the most complete and secure implementation of a secure element that you can find in an Android phone. The only thing that comes even close is the “Secure Enclave” in Apple ARM chips, that are used in modern iPhones, iPads and Macs. I understand the concern about a potential backdoor in the firmware, but that’s a valid concern with basically every CPU on the market right now. x86 are ARM are completely proprietary, so you can’t really trust any CPU based on one of these architectures. The old Google Titan M1 was based on ARM, Apple’s Secure Enclave is also based on ARM, as well as Snapdragon’s SPU (which is incomplete and insecure anyway). The Titan M2, being based on open hardware architecture and firmware, is the most trustworthy secure element, despite being made by Google. It includes features like Insider Attack Resistance, support for the Weaver API, Android StrongBox hardware keystore implementation and is used for a secure implementation of Android Verified Boot. GrapheneOS is free, open-source, and doesn’t use any proprietary Google apps/services by default. Although I hate Google, a Pixel with GrapheneOS is currently the best option for a secure smartphone.

              • Emerald@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                Does your laptop run free software boot firmware? If not, it has the same issues as a phone, if not more. No smartphone runs fully free firmware.

        • GoogleSellsAds@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          People don’t hate Google as much as they should. It’s cringeworthy how much they promote this ad company on this platform. They don’t even realze themselves they got comprised.

  • trolololol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This that and the article are very light on details, but I couldn’t find an article deeper in details

    My laptop, that I own and runs Linux that I installed, has chrome in it. I’m order to log into Gmail for work, it installs an extension that is capable of telling Gmail if my disk is encrypted. I know because you get an error message until my disk was actually encrypted. It was a big surprise to me, and I wonder if this is done by the same piece of code.

    Btw would there be a way to do virtualization through perhaps docker or flat pack or chroot that can isolate chrome in a sandbox and prevent it from a) reading and writing files anywhere on any disk and b) get other data such as CPU, disk encryption etc?

    • Andromxda 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇹🇼@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      My laptop, that I own and runs Linux that I installed, has chrome in it. I’m order to log into Gmail for work, it installs an extension that is capable of telling Gmail if my disk is encrypted. I know because you get an error message until my disk was actually encrypted. It was a big surprise to me, and I wonder if this is done by the same piece of code.

      That’s strange, I’ve never heard of that before

      Btw would there be a way to do virtualization through perhaps docker or flat pack or chroot that can isolate chrome in a sandbox and prevent it from a) reading and writing files anywhere on any disk and b) get other data such as CPU, disk encryption etc?

      There are some isolation mechanisms on Linux like Firejail or Bubblewrap. The latter is used by Flatpak to sandbox applications. These are rather weak though, and Flatpak weakens the security of bwrap further. By default, Flatpak application permissions are also set in a Manifest file, which is created by the maintainer of the package. To get more control over your Flatpak sandbox, you need to use an application like Flatseal.

      Docker (or containers in general) aren’t meant for isolation/sandboxing, but this approach would also work. I would create a container using Distrobox or toolbx, and install Chrome inside the container.

      This will not prevent Chrome from getting your CPU information though. To protect against that, you would have to use a virtual machine (and spoof the your CPU model if you want to hide that from Chrome).

      • beeb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Sounds easier to switch to another browser at that point

          • beeb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh I didn’t catch that my bad. I hope they get a work computer where this kind of stuff doesn’t interfere with private life!

  • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Refreshing change from reading about some new AI powered tracking nonsense in Windows.

  • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not a legal mastermind by a long shot but it seems like a DMA violation. Someone needs to get the EU on their ass.

  • dan@upvote.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    There’s a bunch of stuff in Chrome that’s special-cased to only allow Google to access it.

    Not sure if it’s still there, but many years ago I was trying to figure out how to do something that some Google webapp was doing (can’t remember which one). I think it was something to do with popping up a chromeless window - that is, a new window with no address bar or browser chrome, just some HTML content.

    Turns out the Chromium codebase had a hard-coded allowlist that only allowed *.google.com to use the API!

    • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Are you talking about the “apps” that Chrome used to support? They removed the feature years ago to reduce bloat and RAM usage or something like that.

      Before they removed the feature, I had actually figured out how to create my own “apps” that’d simply load webpages I visited often at the time, like Twitch.

      • QuantumStorm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t know why, but my head automatically put that as “the apps formerly support by Google” the same as “the artist formerly known as Prince”

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I found what I was talking about: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11614605. It was a feature that the Hangouts extension could use, but the user had to manually enable it in the browser settings for any other extensions to use it.

        The apps feature is still there just with a different name. It’s labeled as “create shortcut”, and you have to check the box to open a new window. I use it just because Firefox doesn’t have a similar feature.

  • _sideffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why do people still use Chrome?

    Please uninstall it from everyone’s home pc and phone that you come into contact with

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because it’s fast and works well enough to keep the fame acquired over the last 10 years.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m a Firefox user on desktop and mobile, and I definitely feel like Chrome is faster on both platforms when I (have to) use it. But I prefer Firefox for the ideology and dev tools (on desktop), since I’m a web developer by trade, so the dev tools make a big difference for me.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I use both for my job and my subjective feeling is that chrome is faster. Js benchmarks seems to confirm it. Privately I use Firefox 95% of the time but I understand people who stay on chrome just out of inertia.

        • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There was a short period a few years ago after the Quantum update that I would have partially agreed, because Firefox’s renderer was much smoother. But Chrome seems to have caught up, because it’s been much faster every time I test something in it in the yesrs since.

      • _sideffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        At the cost of zero privacy, data being stolen and other fundamental issues and morals that Google lacks.

        • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Which is invisible to users, meaning they can ignore it or handwave it with “I haven’t got anything to hide”.

          • RobotZap10000@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Or worse, “They already know everything about me, so why bother?”. One of my relatives says this. Kill me now.