Chrome thinks Firefox is unsafe!

Flying Squid@lemmy.world to Mildly Infuriating@lemmy.world – 517 points –

I needed to reinstall Firefox on this computer, so I started up Chrome to download the latest version and it blocked the download as unsafe! I had to manually tell it to download anyway.

Fuck Chrome. I'm glad I only used it to download one file and went back to Firefox.

108

Remember when the meme was about Internet Explorer?

IE: What is my purpose?

Me: You download Chrome!

IE: Oh...my god!

Now Chrome isn't trusted. Even duck duck go is getting dubious. It seems there's almost nowhere to turn. Your data is their data, and if you dont like it, you can lump it.

What's up with ducky?

Nothing. Just a misunderstanding that blew up.

Context and source?

Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn't?

I'm just a passing stranger that just happens to have good knowledge about a significant misunderstanding that happened a year ago.

I don't walk around with 'sources' to all of the knowledge I've ever gained hanging out of my back pocket.

This is why "source?" posts are stupid and unreasonable, double so when in response to something where a source was never provided.

Now.. that all said, I do have a moment now that I didn't have previously to provide additional information.

This article... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31490515 ...Is a starting point, and more info can be found with your own search.

The basic gist was that it was claims DDG pass user data that could identify a user to Microsoft from searches, however this was never the case.

I have to allegiance with DDG.. they do an ok job. But I do indeed think it unfair they get continuously accused of wrongdoing, even still to this day as evidenced here.

This is just another case of bad, negative or incorrect information getting more publicity than the facts.

Someone did provide a source in response when asked instead of writing a diatribe, not that I disagree with you, but your complaint was unnecessary. Someone made a claim and was asked for more information, you made an opposite claim in response to that and were asked for more information.

The person that made the claim never responded. I don't know what you're talking about.

However I did respond, when I could.

So point stands, an accusation was made without evidence, and that accusation is still there, and now mine and one other post responds to that accusation... that again is without evidence.

My issues is, when I made that last post, why was I asked for a source, but no one asked the person making the claim against DDG for a source?

If the people asking me for a source had also asked the original claimant for a source I'd have no issue.

The practice of asking the counter claimant for a source and not the claimant is rife, unfair, unreasonable and needs to be called out.

If seems far too common to accept a say so when an accusation is made online.

Is it fair that I have to post a source when someone criticizing doesn’t?

If you're trying to debunk a myth or call someone's BS, then yes a source should be your opening statement. Is it fair? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.

With all that said thank you for providing the source. A very well written one it was. I am going to debunk this myth now too, if and when I see it.

12 more...

Even duck duck go is getting dubious.

Tried Kagi?

Eyy! You took the words out of my mouth! I don’t mind paying for a search engine if it’s good lol

It's the whole "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product." But I guess the downvoters are perfectly fine with having their data harvested for "free."

Not as easy of a choice when I'm struggling to get a job :/

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
13 more...

At work, we subscribe to Microsoft Defender so that we get a centralised view of potential security issues on people’s computers.

It’s always saying that there’s something wrong with Chrome and it never alerts about the same issues that are almost certainly a problem with Edge.

That’s mildly infuriating too.

Of course! With it's ad-blocking features, Firefox threatens the Chrome/Alphabet profits! This cannot be legal in a free (to make profits) country! /s

You have disabled Safe Browsing. That prevents files from being checked for malware, so all downloads are blocked by default (nothing to do with Firefox). As you noted, you can override the warning to download anyway, but it is an extra step to try to reduce the chance of someone accidentally running a malicious program.

While this could be malice it just as likely could be a complete error. I recently had to download a tool related to x11 on Firefox on windows and it also blocked the download as unsafe. Weirder still, it did this every time I started Firefox until I ended up ditching windows. No idea why.

Did you download it over http instead of https? I know firefox blocks http downloads by default now so I could see chrome doing the same

I'd be very surprised if mozilla.org didn't redirect http to https.

I honestly wasn't paying attention. I just went to the download page.

iirc there's a mac setting in systems prefs where you can allow apps to be downloaded from the app store or the app store and unverified developers. by default i believe they have it set to app store only. (system prefs > security & privacy > general)

https://www.goodcore.co.uk/blog/how-to-install-apps-on-mac-from-unidentified-developers/

(edit: unverified, in this case, means people who don't pay the apple developer subscription to release in the mac app store)

Safari and Firefox are good enough for me, especially since I started using the SSD 3 years ago.

And duckduckgo is good enough too instead of google.

And the free RSS reader NetNewsWire is good enough for me instead of the automatically recommended system of google.

I've noticed YouTube acting funny in Firefox, too. Full-screen no longer works on our Galaxy Tab A using Firefox with ublock. On my PC, YouTube seems to randomly switch audio devices to output to. Neither of those problems exist in Chrome or the YouTube app. They didn't exist in Firefox either until recently. Almost like it's intentional...

Didn't happen to me on windows! ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I don't know why you're getting downvoted; out of curiosity I just now tried it on Windows myself (Google Chrome 120.0.6099.130 Official Build 64-bit) by typing mozilla.org, clicking "Firefox downloads" at the top, and selecting the one for Windows. It sailed through almost instantly.

BUT - just because it worked for me personally on a completely different machine, OS, and installer doesn't mean OP is misrepresenting what happened to him; competitive app blocking has certainly happened with Edge. For all we know it's some Google A/B trial bullshit, no telling at this point.

This is a bit of an aside, but google releases a lot of security updates for Chrome. Sometimes 2-3 a month. Not sure if Firefox does the same since I only see the notices about Chrome. Not sure if it is a good thing that they fix problems quickly or a bad thing that there are so many problems.

I'm usually all aboard the fuck chrome train, but if I remember correctly it does that with all executable files.

Ublock also works better on firefox was using somebody else's computer who had ubo on chrome and a popup showed up on Kelley Blue Book but the same pop up didn't show up on ubo+firefox

People who use chrome instead of Firefox with "betterfox" profile have no idea what they are missing out. Surfing experience is so smooth, and it's privacy friendly

Well, one way to upgrade Firefox to Betterfox is to upgrade it to a wolf instead and call it Libre.

Haven't tried the Librewolf, because I'm satisfied with Firefox profile, but looks looks like a great alternative.

sniff sniff is that a class action lawsuit alleging monopolistic business practices?!

Don't download programs off the internet. Use scoop.sh

Does scoop.sh just magically make it appear? Does it use pigeon transport?

It all uses the internet, using a browser to download things that are only available using HTTP anyways is and has always been harmless and completely fine.

Scoop is a proper package manager so it installs the binaries and adds shortcuts to them.

As for where it gets the binaries it comes from a manifest that gives a source URL and a checksum. This is way better as it provides better protection and doesn't require a web browser. You can just run one command and you are done.

That sounds suspiciously like scoop.sh would be downloading the program from the internet, and a wise person once told me "Don't download programs off the internet." Not today, Satan!

Off the internet is trusting your browser and search engine not to mislead you. Not to mention a direct download is much faster and more efficient

And why should we trust Scoop not to mislead us? Are you their CEO or security advisor?

And why should we trust you? You are also on the internet.

It's funny because in reality for someone who is capable enough to use/want scoop, it'd come with or add a whole new layer of things where security and such could go wrong.

Dont download, use apt or winget.

Don't use winget as its controlled by Microsoft so it is likely to start pushing edge. Also winget isn't a proper package manager as its just a installer program.

apt only works on Debian bases.