About Google Chrome's incompatible applications warning

[Cortex]

You could (have) set her up with WD + ConfigureDefender or Hard_Configurator and that would probably save her from herself.

It was WD that let her down in the first place her problems most likely came from an infected USB stick while WD stood idly by. That's why she bought KIS, since that was installed she has been fine. I still maintain for the last time that for Google to recommend & to supply the means to remove an AV solution with no warnings is crazy. Infections don't just come from the web browser & I'm not a fan of WD anyway.

I'm sure she will be fine with Edge rather than no AV whatsoever which is what she ended up with thanks to following Google's recommendation. I can see Google's point, the way they are going about it is questionable. Suggesting the use of an alternative browser would be one. This is certainly one back slapping thread though.

 

[Bill K]

Regarding Malwarebytes 3 being flagged by Chrome as an incompatible application, they just announced the release of a new version. MB 3.5 new component package v1.0.441 which addresses several issues including removal of anti-exploit shield from Chrome due to Google’s new policy against code injection into Chrome. It will be interesting to see how this change is perceived by their customers as well as how other security software vendors decide to deal with this situation. I'd appreciate the thoughts of MT members on this.

 

[AtlBo]

Anyone have free av suggestions that wont inject it? except wd

EDIT-was going to suggest FortiClient here, but I think it uses injection

There are many Chromium based browsers in the world (and other types), any of which could find itself in Google's position if they overstate the value of their product to their customers at the company. I mean this purely from a marketing perspective and within the company to each other. Seems like a very risky thing they are doing here, when users are perfectly capable of determining for themselves what works best on their own system. And that's why sites like MalwareTips are so important, because of all the good information that can be found about securing a PC and also about what runs best and programs that cause crashes and freezes.

I think Google programmers are trying to justify their own existence here or at least to a degree. I mean programmers don't know how to reach out to confer and collaborate with others when there are issues to be resolved. Yet, it's the programmers who seem to be doing ALL the talking over the last 10 years. Meanwhile, pretty sure the security vendors are thinking that the approach is short-sighted from Google. Yet, I am also certain they will try to comply to the degree it makes sense.

Stepping out like this and alone is risky. Google could burn themselves out of the leadership role. Let's not forget, Chrome is 3rd party software too. It makes no sense for them to allow themselves to be perceived as cozying to Microsoft to defeat 3rd party software from the marketplace and that at the expense of 3rd party developers. Anyway, the 3rd party system will obviously triumph out all of this in the end, so I am personally just waiting to see how far it will go. How much does Google really require that this behavior be stopped? We will probably find out or at least I think so. That's a good thing...

 

[MeltdownEnemy]

Jua Jua Jua Now I wonder, what will say the Adguard Team about this besides the leaked memory problem..

 

[DeepWeb]

Anyone have free av suggestions that wont inject it? except wd

chrome://flags
Enable AppContainer
From my experience it kicks all of the hooks out. At least for now.

 

[Local Host]

I mean programmers don't know how to reach out to confer and collaborate with others when there are issues to be resolved.

As a programmer myself, I can say we don't tend to approach others often to fix the issues in a team, cause normally the developers on the other side tend to have high ego, being extremely rude and uncooperative.
So it reaches a point we stop trying to reach the other side, and tend to rely on hacks to fix the problem on our side alone.

Jua Jua Jua Now I wonder, what will say the Adguard Team about this besides the leaked memory problem..

This won't affect Adguard.

 

[MeltdownEnemy]

As a programmer myself, I can say we don't tend to approach others often to fix the issues in a team, cause normally the developers on the other side tend to have high ego, being extremely rude and uncooperative.
So it reaches a point we stop trying to reach the other side, and tend to rely on hacks to fix the problem on our side alone.

This won't affect Adguard.

On its own, the people faced many problems with that program despite deals.

 

[ichito]

Google determines what Windows users should use
Source (page in Polish) >>>Chrome ostrzega przed antywirusami, Google określa, z czego powinni korzystać użytkownicy Windowsa

It's based on BC article...right?
Bitdefender Disables Anti-Exploit Monitoring in Chrome After Google Policy Change

 

[Moonhorse]

But is this why avast/avg rolling their own browsers based on chromium code?

 

[Andy Ful]

It was WD that let her down in the first place her problems most likely came from an infected USB stick while WD stood idly by.
...

On Windows 10, Defender default protection is comparable to the default protection of other free AVs, so it is pretty good, but not decent. I do not think that she was infected via USB stick, if you have meant automatic malware running via autorun.inf . From Windows Vista SP2, the AutoRun feature is disabled by default.
Anyway, she might run something from the USB stick to be infected, because the SmartScreen Application Reputation ignores files from FAT 32 USB sources.
If she would use Defender high settings on Windows 10, then she would have much greater chances to avoid the malware. If she would use default-deny protection, she would be probably safer as compared to KIS on default settings.

Edit.
Of course, KIS can be configured as a decent protection, but that has also some cons for OS/ software stability on Windows 10.

 

[Cortex]

On Windows 10, Defender default protection is comparable to the default protection of other free AVs, so it is pretty good, but not decent. I do not think that she was infected via USB stick, if you have meant automatic malware running via autorun.inf . From Windows Vista SP2, the AutoRun feature is disabled by default.
Anyway, she might run something from the USB stick to be infected, because the SmartScreen Application Reputation ignores files from FAT 32 USB sources.
If she would use Defender high settings on Windows 10, then she would have much greater chances to avoid the malware. If she would use default-deny protection, she would be probably safer as compared to KIS on default settings.

Edit.
Of course, KIS can be configured as a decent protection, but that has also some cons for OS/ software stability on Windows 10.

The lady is a radiographer but knows nothing about PC security & has no intention of learning much like everyone else I know, & they rely on the likes of me to make their PC's work, that is all they want. I was surmising what had happened some months ago - I don't live with her (sadly) , when I first saw her PC WD was running yet her PC had with infections so I removed them. She had already bought KIS I installed it for her she had no further issues until she foolishly followed Goggles advice to remove KIS which she quickly regretted. Enter me: I received a phone call. KIS was not working but I found not fully removed therefore WD had not kicked either & firewall messed up, so she had neither KIS nor WD or firewall (Edit: The firewall was doing a great job for security as was blocking absolutely everything internet related) all thanks to Googles advise, thanks for that Google - I use KIS & my PC's are perfectly stable., more than myself actually.

My point is was & always be removing products because Chrome advised it can cause major issues, not least me having to drive 5 miles & 3 hours to fix a none working PC that was fine until a highly intelligent female had followed the advise of Chrome & (half) removed her AV because she was scared something dreadful was about to happen. BTW I really do not have the time to circuit my friends & harden etc their PC's they have half hour from me & that's it.

Not everyone spends there hours on security forums, to some (all my work colleges) a PC is much the same as a washing machine/BBQ they just want it to work, total end of story. Frankly it seems many to play advocate of the advice of Google & feel it's a great idea to remove software that MAY , MAY cause issues I can only ask: Have you ever visited the planet earth?
Final comment RE: Google.

Edited for PC.

 

[Andy Ful]

...
My point is was & always be removing products because Chrome advised it can cause major issues, ...

Agree:emoji_fingers_crossed:
I think that inexperienced users should be allowed to install/uninstall only applications from Microsoft store. Desktop applications can often bloat the OS. The stability problems with 3rd party AVs can be related both to their impact on OS & other applications but also to leftovers after AV uninstallation (as with KIS example).
Probably, the best solution would include:

1. The AV vendors should make the full uninstallers for their software (no leftovers).
2. The AV vendors should add an option to skip protecting Google Chrome.
3. The AV vendors should (before installation) alert the user, that Google Chrome is not fully compatible with AV.

or

1. The users who are OK with online services and Web/GooglePLay/Android/Linux apps, can simply buy & use a Chromebook.
2. The inexperienced users who do not install frequently new desktop applications and can be occasionally supervised by an experienced user, can adopt Windows Defender + default-deny protection.