New Update Osprey Browser Protection discussion and updates

[goodjohnjr]

Companies play with other companies apis without necessarily having permission if an API is public you shouldn't need permission to make use of it

I still would not risk it.

 

[Foulest]

Thank you, @Foulest, for responding and for your web browser extension.

Thanks for sharing that, I do recommend sharing that in your change log / news / social media / blog / website / whatever next time.

Please do not continue to put yourself at risk like this.

Be cautious, use common sense, and follow the law(s).

Contact all list & API creators for permission before adding them to your extension.

I recommend removing any that you did not get permission for.

Otherwise, you are setting yourself to get sued, your extension removed from various stores, et cetera.

That would be a shame.

Also, you lose trust, by using your current approach.

You have a good extension with a lot of potential to help people.

Please consider my suggestions.

Have a good night.

Thanks for the message. I've reached out to all companies I don't have explicit permission from to settle this without worrying.

 

[Foulest]

1.2.3 should be out shortly. Symantec has been removed for the same reasons as MalwareURL, this time without a cease and desist—just a friendly conversation asking for it to be removed. This update also includes several adult content filters, like OpenDNS's Family Shield, and family filters for most of the pre-existing providers in Osprey. This benefits parents locking down their kids' devices, and libraries and schools with public computers.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Osprey Browser Protection 1.2.3

Changes

• Removed Symantec Web Protection from protection options
• Added AdGuard Family DNS to protection options
• Added CIRA Family DNS to protection options
• Added CleanBrowsing Family DNS to protection options
• Added CleanBrowsing Adult DNS to protection options
• Added Cloudflare Family DNS to protection options
• Added Control D Family DNS to protection options
• Added DNS0.eu Kids DNS to protection options
• Added OpenDNS Security DNS to protection options
• Added OpenDNS Family Shield DNS to protection options
• Removed checks for fragment-only URLs
• Removed protection tests directory
• Modified default settings
• Cleaned up code

Release 1.2.3 · Foulest/Osprey

Changes in 1.2.3 Removed Symantec Web Protection from protection options Added AdGuard Family DNS to protection options Added CIRA Family DNS to protection options Added CleanBrowsing Family DNS t...

github.com

 

[Parkinsond]

Osprey Browser Protection 1.2.3

Release 1.2.3 · Foulest/Osprey

Changes in 1.2.3 Removed Symantec Web Protection from protection options Added AdGuard Family DNS to protection options Added CIRA Family DNS to protection options Added CleanBrowsing Family DNS t...

github.com

Symantec has less FPs than Norton database.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Symantec has less FPs than Norton database.

But requested to be removed:

New Update - Osprey Browser Protection discussion and updates

Companies play with other companies apis without necessarily having permission if an API is public you shouldn't need permission to make use of it I still would not risk it.

malwaretips.com

 

[jamey910111]

1.2.3 should be out shortly. Symantec has been removed for the same reasons as MalwareURL, this time without a cease and desist—just a friendly conversation asking for it to be removed. This update also includes several adult content filters, like OpenDNS's Family Shield, and family filters for most of the pre-existing providers in Osprey. This benefits parents locking down their kids' devices, and libraries and schools with public computers.

I thought malwareurl was removed because of too many false positives so it was a legal case then?
Wasnt aware symantec is so sensitive about the use of their definitions

 

[Foulest]

I thought malwareurl was removed because of too many false positives so it was a legal case then?
Wasnt aware symantec is so sensitive about the use of their definitions

Yes - both legal.

 

[jamey910111]

Yes - both legal.

I honestly saw this as a marketing opportunity for symantec, and ppl getting acquainted with different antivirus extension capabilities which speaks back to their product. But to each their own.

 

[Parkinsond]

I thought malwareurl was removed because of too many false positives so it was a legal case then?
Wasnt aware symantec is so sensitive about the use of their definitions

B and GData filters can do the job; Norton filter is good, but with many FPs.

 

[goodjohnjr]

Thanks for the message. I've reached out to all companies I don't have explicit permission from to settle this without worrying.

Hello @Foulest, that is great to hear, thank you very much, that was fast.

Good luck, I hope that they will say yes, and keep up the good work.

 

[Foulest]

Hello @Foulest, that is great to hear, thank you very much, that was fast.

Good luck, I hope that they will say yes, and keep up the good work.

1.2.4 has been submitted to extension stores, removing Emsisoft as a protection provider - legal reasons, again. They might return in the future, unlike the two previous removals. Time will tell.

 

[goodjohnjr]

1.2.4 has been submitted to extension stores, removing Emsisoft as a protection provider - legal reasons, again. They might return in the future, unlike the two previous removals. Time will tell.

Thank you for sharing that @Foulest. You are fast, that is unfortunate, but I am glad that you are doing it the correct way now.

 

[piquiteco]

@Foulest Thank you very much for Osprey Browser Protection and for the excellent work you have done so far. Unfortunately, however, I will be removing Osprey from my browsers and will no longer be using the Osprey Browser Protection extension. Many engines are being removed from Osprey, such as Symantec Browser Protection, Emsisoft Browser Security, among others. For me, regardless of false positives, I consider Symantec to be one of the best engines, followed by Emsisoft and Bitdefender. I will continue to use the four extensions I used before these companies in my browsers, because for me they provide excellent protection and I have no concerns about my privacy. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I appreciate your attention to me and to all of us here at MT. I thank @Jan Willy for discovering the Osprey Browser Protection extension. I apologize to my colleagues at MT for my sincerity. It makes no sense for me to use the Osprey extension if the best engines are being removed. In my humble opinion, companies want us to use their products and their extensions. It's that simple. Unfortunately, that's the reality. I'm sorry about that.

 

[Sorrento]

I'm keeping the extension on: I think when the dust settles it will be fine, Thank for your hard work !

 

[badboy]

I still have version 1.2.2. All the engines are in place. So the question is: it is possible to save for download old versions that have not been changed, isn't it? Maybe it makes sense to post them somewhere separately for those who want to download the old versions?

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I still have version 1.2.2. All the engines are in place. So the question is: it is possible to save for download old versions that have not been changed, isn't it? Maybe it makes sense to post them somewhere separately for those who want to download the old versions?

You can install older versions , fork and add commits back if you want and I will probably fork osprey for myself too as im planing to use osprey and checkpoint without any extra security add-ons ( Symantec is important for me to have in osprey )

 

[Parkinsond]

I still have version 1.2.2. All the engines are in place. So the question is: it is possible to save for download old versions that have not been changed, isn't it? Maybe it makes sense to post them somewhere separately for those who want to download the old versions?

But using old version means using outdated database (need to be updated with each new version).

 

[Foulest]

I'm keeping the extension on: I think when the dust settles it will be fine, Thank for your hard work !

Thanks! I've got something exciting coming up in the next release. Well, for me at least.

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

But using old version means using outdated database (need to be updated with each new version).

Osprey doesn't have any database it sends urls to apis (always up to date) although I will recommend adding commits back for the missing providers rather then using an older version