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.
You must log in or register to comment.
My favorite is Edge trying to plead with you not to switch browsers
deleted by creator
Just reproduced it here-
Are you using a company (work) laptop? Chance that it’s a rule configured by your company’s sysadmin. Chance that they configured it to block downloads for executables. Try downloading other apps to confirm.
No, although I did use it for work, which is the only reason Chrome is on the computer. But the sysadmin didn’t touch it.
They don’t need to touch it. If you login using your company’s google account, they automatically has access via their MDM console.
I don’t. I don’t even work there anymore. I quit a couple of weeks ago.
If you have a good functioning IT dept, that laptop was fully configured to their specifications long before you got a hold of it and it certainly happens automatically.
I didn’t get it from work. It’s my personal machine. I just used it when I had a hybrid schedule. But I don’t log in with that account because it doesn’t exist anymore since I don’t work there anymore.
Gotcha
Perhaps the download was corrupted? Like maybe the checksum didn’t match. Did it happen a second time or after you did a force refresh?
Actually, the second time I did it on a Macbook. A separate machine. However, they are both Intel Macs, so they are older and running an older OS (Monterey). Could that be it?
I just tried to reproduce this and couldn’t either. I’m also using a mac. Had to download a fresh copy of chrome since I didn’t already have it on my machine and it let me download 121.0 without hiccup. I’m curious what blocked it on yours.
Huh. Me too. Very weird. It’s not a problem obviously, but I’m curious too.
Apple MDM. You can lock down a computer in all sorts of ways.
Source: I manage thousands of Macs.
Your safe browsing was disabled, as another commenter said. Either you had it disabled manually, or it was momentarily down and couldn’t fetch the list. Either way, it marks all downloads as unsafe just to be sure in that case.
I don’t use Chrome but maybe that Google Malware scan option is not set to the strictest?
You sure have a lot of tabs for something that you use only once.
I used it for work before I quit my job because the backend required Chrome. Believe it or not, I didn’t bother to close out all the work tabs when I quit the job.
Did you really quit the job because you had to start making a Chrome product?
Chad move. 💪
No. I really quit my job because I’m suffering from a mystery illness.
Ah, okay, I’m sorry to hear that.
But also this just opens up even more intrigue.
I agree. It makes no sense.
You sure have a lot of tabs for something that you use only once.
So, have you filed a complaint yet? https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation
I will now, thanks!
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?
Ok, seems it’s time to seek next search engine.
The safety of tor browser is great, but I usually use the private mode of safari or firefox, I am lazy to wait for the tor… unless I do some important things.
Browser private modes are not really private, it’s just an isolated window that won’t save your search to the browser history. Google and other trackers would always link your private session back to you.
Read Mozilla’s take on browser private modes.
It’s just a balance between performance and safety. Everyone in different situations needs to consider whether it’s suitable for themselves to make different decisions. The most safe usage doesn’t always mean the best usage for every situation, OK?
Don’t google block your tor browser?
Google serves me captcha and those are not much of a problem since I rarely use it.
You could give 4get.ca a shot. Librewolf recently added it as a default search engine. It seems to work similarly to SearXNG.
That looks great at first until I tried searching and I got hit with a low-res captcha asking me to choose pictures about minecraft because /g/tards bots are stressing the server. I don’t get that on SearX.
Also, the server is in the US, privacy-wise, that’s quite bad.
I got hit with a low-res captcha
Yeah, that’s not great. But I never was really happy with SearXNG. Every now and then I had to switch back to DDG because the results were subpar. Also my instance was not available semi-frequently. If 4get works better I’d be willing to solve a captcha every 100 queries, especially since they seem quite reasonable (compared to Google’s captchas).
Also, the server is in the US, privacy-wise, that’s quite bad.
There are several instances (https://4get.ca/instances, https://4get.lvkaszus.pl/) and the underlying code is open source (https://git.lolcat.ca/lolcat/4get).
Kagi.com is pretty good
Nothing. Just a misunderstanding that blew up.
Context and source?
those also blew up, no traces left
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.
Nothing to see here, you say? Gotcha. 🙈
Thanks. Sorry you feel providing a source for claims is unfair, but it is what it is.
All I really needed was context, to be honest, in this particular case. I got that, so thanks again.
Asking for a source isn’t unreasonable in a more important setting.
It’s more an issue that no one asks for source for the original accusation.
It’s the kind of action that lets baseless and faulty accusations get more traction than the truth.
I think they were just curious and should’ve probably said “What happened? And do you possibly have a link to more information?” I don’t think they were questioning the claim, itself. That’s just my interpretation.
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.”
But I guess the downvoters are perfectly fine with having their data harvested for “free.”
Not everyone has $10/month just lying around. There are free alternatives that don’t belong to ad companies. searx.be for example.
Not as easy of a choice when I’m struggling to get a job :/
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.
Firefox thinks Chrome is unsafe as well.
Well thats true though…
*knows
Enshittification is everywhere.
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.
Unsafe… for our margins!
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.
my ass
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)
Yeah Gatekeeper
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 automated recommendation system of google.
The irony. I use Vivaldi Browser now and may consider switching to Fennec if Firefox ever implements tab stacks.
What are tab stacks?
I use an extension in Firefox for this
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…
