Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Google Engineering Lead on Lessons Learned From Chrome's HTTPS Push
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
8/13/2018 | 11:37:53 AM
Re: Internet bullying.
You both make some valid points; but I think the choice of vendors is less free than assumed.  There are certainly restrictions in the corporate and academic environments (some choices are not allowed, others forced - as they are necessary to certain, required, applications).  Even for individuals, many will use the browser best suited to their OS, or will choose to stay with their OS's browser so as not to provide even more data to yet another IT mega-corporation.  Are you going to go through the process of reconfiguring and learning new habits, every time your current browser vendor changes its policies or practices (assuming you'll even be aware of it)?  Maybe "bullying" isn't the right word, but "heavy-handed" - definitely. 
BrianN060
50%
50%
BrianN060,
User Rank: Ninja
8/13/2018 | 11:09:44 AM
Re: Who decides?
There are just too many self-serving motivations for any individuals or corporate, political or activist entities, to be trusted with being the guardians of the cyber-universe, to dictate what is or isn't moral, ethical or otherwise acceptable behavior.  Yet, there is a dire need to hold individuals, groups, transient associations and other entities responsible for clear violations of the most fundamental principles of moral and ethical behavior.  Perhaps the problem lies in the tendency to redefine those traditional principles to suit whatever self-serving motivations currently serve us best.     
dmatos123
50%
50%
dmatos123,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/13/2018 | 10:40:08 AM
Re: Internet bullying.
I guess we'll agree to disagree on this.  My thoughts on a browser update regarding a security alert doesn't amount to bullying.  Users are free to download and use any other browser besides chrome.  If, on the other hand, google had a monopoly on browsers, the point could be made that it's heavy-handed.  
BPID
0%
100%
BPID,
User Rank: Strategist
8/9/2018 | 6:09:02 PM
Re: Internet bullying.
It is not the site which is insecure, but the communucations: from your browser to that site which, by the way Google is monitoring and deciding good/bad. Reality is the internet is not secure. We see daily sites and large corporations, Experion, Target, Facebook, etc., for example, as having HTTPS and insecure with data breaches. Facebook having HTTPS is before congress to explain why they are insecure.

A notification that any data to and from a site is not secure, means that Google is monitoring users activity. That alone should make you nervous. If it finds a site without HTRTPS, it can exclude it from it's search engine. That should be sufficient. But Google doesn't define insecure as having poor data security it defines dangerous as not having HTTPS.

Google is, in it's own discretion, is marking innocnt users of the internet as insecure and also in it's own hubris decided that it is the internet's sole policeman. If it wants to define a site as insecure it should strt with sites that don't protect data.
dmatos123
50%
50%
dmatos123,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/9/2018 | 1:44:54 PM
Re: Internet bullying.
I disagree.  The reality is that "normal" users have little insight into what HTTPS means vs HTTP and how the transmissions differ regarding their personal and identifying information when using the web.  An extra click or so to get to the content of an "insecure" site which also advises users that a site isn't secure is good for everyone.  It forces sight owners to comply with basic security measures to protect user information in transit - especially in light of today's environment.  It also educates users on the inherent threats in HTTP.  To claim censorship is stretching a bit.  #IMHO
BPID
25%
75%
BPID,
User Rank: Strategist
8/9/2018 | 1:17:10 PM
Internet bullying.
There is no doubt that securing data in transmission is a good thing. However. Google's dominant position does not give them the right to block or interrupt a user from reaching any site.

Though you may give your browser instructions to bypass their "WARNING" it still amounts to disruption of business, and a form of censorship.

In simple terms, no matter how good the intention, Google is bullying. It is internet bullying; it is a form of censorship and no matter who or why it is wrong to deny or impede legitimate and legal entities from conducting discource.

 


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 9/21/2020
Cybersecurity Bounces Back, but Talent Still Absent
Simone Petrella, Chief Executive Officer, CyberVista,  9/16/2020
Meet the Computer Scientist Who Helped Push for Paper Ballots
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Latest Comment: Exactly
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How IT Security Organizations are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world -- and enterprise computing -- on end. Here's a look at how cybersecurity teams are retrenching their defense strategies, rebuilding their teams, and selecting new technologies to stop the oncoming rise of online attacks.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-6564
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in permissions in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of a permission dialog via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6565
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Inappropriate implementation in Omnibox in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6566
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in media in Google Chrome prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6567
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient validation of untrusted input in command line handling in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.
CVE-2020-6568
PUBLISHED: 2020-09-21
Insufficient policy enforcement in intent handling in Google Chrome on Android prior to 85.0.4183.83 allowed a remote attacker to bypass navigation restrictions via a crafted HTML page.