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.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

8/20/2010
06:15 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
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
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
State of Cybersecurity Incident Response
Data breaches and regulations have forced organizations to pay closer attention to the security incident response function. However, security leaders may be overestimating their ability to detect and respond to security incidents. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5735
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-08
Amcrest cameras and NVR are vulnerable to a stack-based buffer overflow over port 37777. An authenticated remote attacker can abuse this issue to crash the device and possibly execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2020-5736
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-08
Amcrest cameras and NVR are vulnerable to a null pointer dereference over port 37777. An authenticated remote attacker can abuse this issue to crash the device.
CVE-2017-18646
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-08
An issue was discovered on Samsung mobile devices with M(6.x) and N(7.x) software. An attacker can bypass the password requirement for tablet user switching by folding the magnetic cover. The Samsung ID is SVE-2017-10602 (December 2017).
CVE-2020-5549
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-08
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in EasyBlocks IPv6 Ver. 2.0.1 and earlier and Enterprise Ver. 2.0.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators via unspecified vectors.
CVE-2020-5550
PUBLISHED: 2020-04-08
Session fixation vulnerability in EasyBlocks IPv6 Ver. 2.0.1 and earlier, and Enterprise Ver. 2.0.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to impersonate a registered user and log in the management console, that may result in information alteration/disclosure via unspecified vectors.