Vulnerabilities / Threats
8/20/2010
06:15 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google Adds Developer Fee To Enhance Extension Security

It's only $5 but Google hopes the fee will limit abuses by malicious developers.

In addition to launching a developer preview of its forthcoming Chrome Web Store on Thursday, Google moved to make its developer ecosystem more secure.

Hoping to impose a cost on those who create multiple fake developer accounts for the purpose of propagating malicious extensions and manipulating reviews, the company introduced a nominal $5 fee for developers of Chrome Extension, Themes, and (soon) Apps who wish to host their content in Google's galleries and store.




Top 15 Google Apps For Business
(click for larger image and for full photo gallery)

"The developer signup fee is a one-time payment of $5," wrote Google product manager Gregor Hochmuth in a blog post. "It is intended to create better safeguards against fraudulent extensions in the gallery and limit the activity of malicious developer accounts."

Confronted with criticism that $5 is a meaningful amount of money in some countries, Google Chrome developer advocate Arne Roomann-Kurrik defended the fee in a developer forum post. "We understand that $5 USD can be significant for some developers, but we feel that this one-time cost compares favorably with fees charged by other developer platforms," wrote Roomann-Kurrik. "You will also be able to continue to develop extensions and even host them on your own Web site for free -- the $5 developer fee only applies to publishing an extension/app in the gallery."

Google also introduced a domain verification system to allow developers to create "official" extensions for their Web sites.

This marks a change in the strategy that Google announced back December, 2009, when the plan was to let anyone rate extensions. The company assumed that malicious extensions would get low ratings and the community would police itself, thereby offering a layer of protection beyond technical measures like privilege separation.

Google recognized that there were flaws to this approach in February. Noting in a post to the Chrome Extensions developer forum that the company's policy of allowing anonymous ratings was being exploited to manipulate extension-related searches, Roomann-Kurrik declared that users henceforth would have to be logged in to post extension reviews.

The wisdom of the crowd, it seems, remains unable to anticipate the malice of the scammer, despite past efforts to take advantage Firefox's Add-ons site (AMO or add-ons.mozilla.org) and the Android Market.

Google says its extension gallery contains more than 6,000 extensions and that 10 million extensions are downloaded by Chrome users every month.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7392
Published: 2014-07-22
Gitlist allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in a file name to Source/.

CVE-2014-2385
Published: 2014-07-22
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the web UI in Sophos Anti-Virus for Linux before 9.6.1 allow local users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) newListList:ExcludeFileOnExpression, (2) newListList:ExcludeFilesystems, or (3) newListList:ExcludeMountPaths parameter t...

CVE-2014-4326
Published: 2014-07-22
Elasticsearch Logstash 1.0.14 through 1.4.x before 1.4.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a crafted event in (1) zabbix.rb or (2) nagios_nsca.rb in outputs/.

CVE-2014-4511
Published: 2014-07-22
Gitlist before 0.5.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via shell metacharacters in the file name in the URI of a request for a (1) blame, (2) file, or (3) stats page, as demonstrated by requests to blame/master/, master/, and stats/master/.

CVE-2014-4911
Published: 2014-07-22
The ssl_decrypt_buf function in library/ssl_tls.c in PolarSSL before 1.2.11 and 1.3.x before 1.3.8 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via vectors related to the GCM ciphersuites, as demonstrated using the Codenomicon Defensics toolkit.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Where do information security startups come from? More important, how can I tell a good one from a flash in the pan? Learn how to separate ITSec wheat from chaff in this episode.