Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Security Products Flag Google Chrome As a Virus

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the if-it-quacks-like-a-horse dept.

Chrome 258

New submitter maeltor writes "Reports poured in this morning that Microsoft's security products, namely Microsoft Security Essentials and Forefront Client Security, were flagging Google Chrome as a virus (PWS:Win32/Zbot) and removing the browser if users chose to clean and reboot their machines. Users reported that the only way to mitigate the problem was to set MSE and Forefront to 'always allow' Zbot, which is generally considered to be a bad idea." A Google employee in the above support thread notes that Microsoft has now pushed another update to resolve the issue. "On September 30th, 2011, an incorrect detection for PWS:Win32/Zbot was identified. On September 30th, 2011, Microsoft released an update that addresses the issue. Signature versions 1.113.672.0 and higher include this update."

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A joke... (5, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569852)

Microsoft Security Products Flag Google Chrome As a Virus

For once, Microsoft get's it right!

Re:A joke... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569952)

I tend to think of it more as a security hole. Then again, so is IE, so... I don't see why it isn't catching IE as well.

Re:A joke... (1)

Denogh (2024280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570306)

I bought a PC in 2004, and when I opened IE (to download Firefox) I was immediately warned by the factory installed Norton product that IE was a potentially dangerous program and that they recommended I not allow it to connect.

Re:NOT A joke... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570292)

It *should* have flagged it as spyware.

Re:NOT A joke... (1)

dicobalt (1536225) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570408)

I was just going to say that.

Re:A joke... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570484)

I realise you were going for humour, but Google does a lot of very shady things involving auto-updates and integrating with unnecessary parts of a system. Why does my Firefox installation need a Google Update plug-in I never asked for, and why does it keep getting reactivated even though I've explicitly turned it off?

The reaction might not have been deliberate on this occasion, but I am utterly lacking in sympathy if Google's shady code starts getting treated like malware. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's still a duck, even though sometimes it can taste good.

Re:A joke... (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570628)

Chrome is no virus, but it is technically speaking spyware, forcing Google to introduce the term badware to replace malware, because malware includes spyware but badware only includes spyware used for id-theft, not spyware used for targeted advertisement.

Holy crap! (-1, Troll)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569878)

People use Microsoft Security Essentials?

Re:Holy crap! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569908)

More Windows users do use it than not, I would suspect. It's free and works just as well as the pay-for competitors. So why not?

Re:Holy crap! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569922)

...but does it work just as well as the free competitors?

Re:Holy crap! (3, Insightful)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570070)

Actually, it works quite a bit better. And since it isn't an income source, it doesn't nag you constantly.

Re:Holy crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570138)

Actually, it works quite a bit better. And since it isn't an income source, it doesn't nag you constantly.

See that's what I love about Linux. I never see a nag screen. I also have a real package manager too, so I don't have an icon tray full of little annoying pop-ups telling me that such-and-such has an update and that i really need to separately update each individual program one at a time...

If you like putting up with that go ahead. I prefer knowing I can i.e. edit a document without being distracted, advertised to, nagged, reminded of things that should be automated, etc.

Re:Holy crap! (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570286)

Actually, it works quite a bit better. And since it isn't an income source, it doesn't nag you constantly.

See that's what I love about Linux. I never see a nag screen. I also have a real package manager too, so I don't have an icon tray full of little annoying pop-ups telling me that such-and-such has an update and that i really need to separately update each individual program one at a time... If you like putting up with that go ahead. I prefer knowing I can i.e. edit a document without being distracted, advertised to, nagged, reminded of things that should be automated, etc.

Looks like we're under a smug alert.. I always find it interesting when Linux fanboys assume that because someone uses Windows, it means they only use Windows.

Re:Holy crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570388)

Actually, it works quite a bit better. And since it isn't an income source, it doesn't nag you constantly.

See that's what I love about Linux. I never see a nag screen. I also have a real package manager too, so I don't have an icon tray full of little annoying pop-ups telling me that such-and-such has an update and that i really need to separately update each individual program one at a time... If you like putting up with that go ahead. I prefer knowing I can i.e. edit a document without being distracted, advertised to, nagged, reminded of things that should be automated, etc.

Looks like we're under a smug alert.. I always find it interesting when Linux fanboys assume that because someone uses Windows, it means they only use Windows.

Looks like we're under a defensive dumbass alert... I always find it interesting when thoughtless persons assume that because someone uses multiple operating systems, it makes your comments about a particular one of those operating systems somehow less true.

What I said about Windows applies to you when you are using Windows. This doesn't change just because you aren't always using Windows. Logic fail. You might as well say that because swans are birds, therefore all birds must be swans. But please keep accusing me of smugness because I don't like Windows, you seem so competent to assess this.

Re:Holy crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570574)

On second thought, I'm sorry I called you a dumbass, man. I'm being kind of a dick today; I think my meds need to be reevaluated.

Re:Holy crap! (2)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570662)

Actually, it works quite a bit better. And since it isn't an income source, it doesn't nag you constantly.

See that's what I love about Linux. I never see a nag screen. I also have a real package manager too, so I don't have an icon tray full of little annoying pop-ups telling me that such-and-such has an update and that i really need to separately update each individual program one at a time... If you like putting up with that go ahead. I prefer knowing I can i.e. edit a document without being distracted, advertised to, nagged, reminded of things that should be automated, etc.

Looks like we're under a smug alert.. I always find it interesting when Linux fanboys assume that because someone uses Windows, it means they only use Windows.

Looks like we're under a defensive dumbass alert... I always find it interesting when thoughtless persons assume that because someone uses multiple operating systems, it makes your comments about a particular one of those operating systems somehow less true. What I said about Windows applies to you when you are using Windows. This doesn't change just because you aren't always using Windows. Logic fail. You might as well say that because swans are birds, therefore all birds must be swans. But please keep accusing me of smugness because I don't like Windows, you seem so competent to assess this.

Looks like we're under a myopic moron alert. I always find it interesting when someone can't see any circumstance where someone would use a piece of software other than his preferred piece of software. What I said about the Security Essentials is true when I'm using Windows. What's also true when I'm using windows is that I'm a.) able to play games without spending 2 days looking for workarounds to get the game to run 5 minutes in Wine before it crashes, and b.) able to make money writing windows apps. That, combined with the fact that I don't have to put up with the nagging and such because I use SE, don't install malware, etc. makes for a fine case for using Windows when it suits my needs.

It is ranked better than most (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570104)

But that only means it responds better to the tests.

Don't know if it is that good at capturing new, unknown threats like very products do.

Re:It is ranked better than most (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570456)

In my experience for typical users it works better, lately checking AV comparitives, MSE is falling lower and lower on the list of effective catches. MSE's greatest stregnth however, is it's ability to work silently, with a small footprint. When working as a PC tech, my greatest nusance was when after removing a virus, I would load up a PC with avira, run them on firefox, install ad-block. Take 30 minutes teaching them about everything, then I would get a call back 2 weeks later and discover, they disabled avira due to being annoyed by "the pop-ups", and used IE, and were flooded with infections again. MSE has the perk of more or less being so out of the way they don't even notice it. Bottom line, users are getting less and less inteligent, and having idiot proof protection that catches 75% of possible threats, for many users is better then a fictional piece of software that eliminates 100% of threats, but is annoying enough that your dumb users turn it off.

Re:Holy crap! (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570406)

Yep, http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/5928/2011_free_av.html [pcworld.com] it's just about on any list....

I remember back in 2010 it hit like #2 in terms of detection, but I can't find that study anymore, it hit like 99.5+% detection. Made me go hmm, I guess MS knows their own shit best. It works, it really does, it's just not very advertised or known because it's free and MS won't spend revenue telling newbs to download it. I prefer it over the ESET we use at work actually, it doesn't f w your system like norton and mcafee do. On that note, I can set up comodo via f'in w my system for a while to be the superior product by a mile, but that probably requires some serious computer knowledge, I can't tell anymore :)

Re:Holy crap! (4, Informative)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569948)

It is as good as most of the competitors products, plus its free and doesn't bog down the system or constantly nag you with useless information.

Re:Holy crap! (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570026)

Sadly, there's nothing better than MSSE + a good AV/AS firewall.

Re:Holy crap! (3, Insightful)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570110)

I'm betting you meant to suggest that the state of security software is pretty wretched these days rather than heap praise on MSSE. Am I right?

Re:Holy crap! (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570592)

I think he's referring to the fact the the "best" antivirus solution isn't really the best at catching viruses. It just happens to be the best at not making your computer run like crap.

Re:Holy crap! (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569956)

It is probably the best free antivirus.

Re:Holy crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569968)

I boot my windows partition about once a month and don't care enough to install another free antivirus

Re:Holy crap! (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570042)

I'm using it right now!

Re:Holy crap! (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570584)

I install it on peoples computers who are incapable of re-registering Avast.

Not the best solution, but it doesn't require user intervention unless something really goes wrong. Good for people who have no fucking clue what they are doing.

Re:Holy crap! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570610)

You should try it, it's actually pretty good.

Re:Holy crap! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570666)

Why not? Common Sense 2.0 covers the big things, MSE is just an insurance policy...

Microsoft to Google... (4, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569892)

"Oh, Woops! How did that happen?! So sorry about that Google. Totally a mistake. Totally. Our bad, really."

Meanwhile some clueless user just switched back to IE.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570044)

How many clueless users do you know who use Chrome, really?

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570132)

Chrome is an easy-to-use mainstream browser, I know lots of clueless people who've switched to it from IE after the massive ad campaigns Google ran.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570148)

Quite a few.

"hey look! I'm using chrome, I can't be hit by viruses now!"

Or better yet.

"I'll never have a problem with viruses, I use Chrome on a Mac, both are impervious!"

Re:Microsoft to Google... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570350)

How many clueless users do you know who use Chrome, really?

If I see somebody using Chrome, that's pretty much the tipoff for cluelessness.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (1)

elliott666 (447115) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570476)

How many clueless users do you know who use Chrome, really?

If I see somebody using Chrome, that's pretty much the tipoff for cluelessness.

Seriously? What's your tip off for a savvy user then?

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570564)

lynx... also a tipoff for people-with-too-much-idle-time-in-their-hands or no-life :)

Re:Microsoft to Google... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570652)

Noob. l33t users browse with wget and cat. Yes we take in the code as it flies past our eyeballs at high speed. In fact, we don't even see the code, just blonde, brunette, redhead...

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570352)

I'm sure there are a lot of people like parents that have tech inclined children or friends that come over and occasionally fix the occasional issue like malware infestation. That person likely would download a different browser like Chrome or FF and set it as the default browser. The original owner now continues using the computer either not knowing, or not caring, that the browser has been changed since it operates in mostly the same manner.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (1)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570448)

"hey mom, why are you using internet explorer again?"

Re:Microsoft to Google... (5, Insightful)

Chemicles (771024) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570340)

Right. If some bug had been discovered in some open source software and was corrected in 2 hours, the comments on the story would be a circlejerk praising the open source community.

Microsoft realizes there's a bug, corrects it within 2 hours, and it's anti-competetive. Sheesh. They did a good job with a quick fix, can't we just acknowledge success when it happens?

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570384)

Have you lost that thing called humour?

Re:Microsoft to Google... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570396)

> can't we just acknowledge success when it happens?

I'd like to acknowledge some irony too - is that ok?

Re:Microsoft to Google... (2)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570424)

"Oh, Woops! How did that happen?! So sorry about that Google. Totally a mistake. Totally. Our bad, really."

Meanwhile some clueless user just switched back to IE.

I'm sorry but I have to...

"In business news today, Google has filed a lawsuit asking for $150,000,000 in damages from Microsoft for taking one Google Chrome Internet browser user from them. This is related to the 'false positive' report by a Microsoft product that the Google browser was a virus or piece of 'malware'. Google is seeking damages for the one lost user, plus total long-term net loss based on loss of referrals and recommendations, combined with the establishment of case law to help businesses bring in more money from the loss of business than the actual performance of it now and in the future."

/humor

Re:Microsoft to Google... (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570598)

Now that's funny. And I know funny. I'm a clownfish.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570430)

"Oh, Woops! How did that happen?! So sorry about that Google. Totally a mistake. Totally. Our bad, really."

Meanwhile some clueless user just switched back to IE.

Ah, reminds me of the MSN - Opera debacle years ago. Bork Bork Bork.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570518)

Sad thing is if somehow this were to go the other way, MS would be calling their anti-trust lawyers in 10 minutes. Just like how they did when they noticed hotmail was lower then gmail, and google docs ranking above microsofts cloud office on the search engine.

Re:Microsoft to Google... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570626)

I'm always slightly surprised when IE allows me to download Chrome or Firefox.

Virus scanner flags something that is not a virus! (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569894)

This has never happened in all of computing history.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569916)

As a McAfee employee, I can personally attest to the veracity of your claim.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570144)

As a McAfee employee, how did you manage to post this without your products flagging and quarantining half of your system?

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570220)

You think I actually use our products?!

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (1)

VMSBIGOT (933292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570644)

Isn't it about time for your product to remove a critical system component such as LSASS or WinLogon?

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569918)

Obviously was on purpose because Micro$oft is evil and Google does no evil.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570096)

No its because they were arguing yesterday on Twitter.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (4, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569974)

Right. Let's face it, Microsoft would have done this on purpose if they had thought of it and thought they could get away with it, but chances are, this was an honest mistake. Test by: the regular (but hopefully infrequent) false positives you get from any antivirus product. Also test by: the speed at which M$ corrected it. Probably nothing to see here.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (-1, Troll)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570330)

Are you joking?

You think in 2011 microsoft can't possible have come up with a whitelist, or a way to remove a legitimately installed program other than uninstalling it, like deleting the executable (standard antivirus response)?

not sure if sarcasm or not.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570684)

> You think in 2011 microsoft can't possible have come up with a whitelist, or a way to remove a legitimately installed program other than uninstalling it, like deleting the executable (standard antivirus response)?

It's certainly technically possible, but why would Microsoft care about whitelisting Google apps? What does that buy them? Especially for an app Microsoft is giving away for free?

Moreover, even if they had not intended to bugger Chrome, it's not like Microsoft hasn't made phenomenally stupid mistakes in the past. This could have been yet another.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570334)

the speed at which M$ corrected it.

It is almost like they knew about it and had a fix ready.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570446)

and/or apologies if redundant/flamey.

Re:Virus scanner flags something that is not a vir (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570498)

Quiz for ya, Mr. Serious:

What's a five-letter word that begins with an 'H' and ends with an 'R', has a 'U' in the middle, and relates to the use of satire or comical remarks to spark a laugh or amusement in others?

I think the comment you replied to had some of it in it.

Whoops! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569900)

It looks like they responded within 2 hours - not bad!
Google support ticket with issue and resolution at the top: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=42d6ba02d7eed070&hl=en
I wonder what Chrome did that smelled like Win32/Zbot.

Re:Whoops! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569954)

Good point. Makes you wonder what Chrome might be doing or tracking behind the scenes. Something must have triggered the virus scanner and normal program behaviour just does not do that. Just sayin'.

Re:Whoops! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570528)

They've got V8 generating code at runtime, Nacl sandbox using segment registers, installer doing address relocation after decompressing (probably using custom x86-specific compression algo like Snappy), an always-running update checker, etc. It's no wonder they'd get randomly marked as a virus.

Re:Whoops! (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570554)

Well Zbot has a lot of really broad things that you're looking for in terms of detection. So to have something legitimate being nailed wouldn't surprise me, it actually surprises me that other browsers haven't been nailed yet because they do the same things that, that includes IE, Opera and a variety of webkit based ones.

Re:Whoops! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570630)

Chrome installs itself and runs itself from the local user settings directory. This is a directory that's specifically intended to be used to program data that can't/shouldn't be stored in the registry. (For example, a file cache should be stored there.)

It's directly equivalent to UNIX $HOME/.program_name/ directories, so it would be like if Chrome installed to $HOME/.chrome/ instead of /usr/bin/.

That's almost virus-like behavior (running programs from directories that shouldn't contain executable code), and is incredibly annoying if you use a computer that is shared between multiple users.

However it means Chrome can update itself without causing UAC prompts, while Firefox can't, so there's that. Oh, and anything else can update Chrome without causing UAC prompts too.

Re:Whoops! (5, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570004)

I wonder what Chrome did that smelled like Win32/Zbot.

Made IE look stupid and fat.

Re:Whoops! (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570362)

Installing in %APPDATA% by default is one of them

Re:Whoops! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570374)

If they responded within 2 hours, they already had a patch ready...

It is a virus (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569906)

Chrome is a virus. You see, it has caused the marketing people at Mozilla to go crazy with the numbering scheme of FF and as a result, borked up my once good to use user interface into a complete mess of new design, misplaced buttons, screwy single menus and a whole host of unusable extensions. Chrome is a virus... that has killed Firefox.

Re:It is a virus (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570450)

Sorry, they had it coming. Nobody told them to be more like Chrome.

MSE (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569920)

I've found MSE to be terrible at false positives, flagging more than one perfectly valid file on my computer as some sort of malware.

Worse is that if I tell MSE to let me decide what to do with it, then go look up whether someone else had this problem and/or research the virus or whatever, MSE will *automatically* decide after a short time that it needs to delete it and will do so.

It was at this point when I removed MSE in disgust and promised never to touch that filth ever again.

Re:MSE (3, Insightful)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570264)

Never had a single false positive with it. Odds are your's aren't. Beat it trollboy.

Re:MSE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570274)

You, sir, are full of shit.

Now go back to picking Cheetos dust and fleas out of your beard.

How many days in a row have you worn that "I read your email" t-shirt? I mean, is that a cum stain or just gravy?

Good grief.

Re:MSE (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570542)

I've found MSE to be terrible at false positives, flagging more than one perfectly valid file on my computer as some sort of malware.

Worse is that if I tell MSE to let me decide what to do with it, then go look up whether someone else had this problem and/or research the virus or whatever, MSE will *automatically* decide after a short time that it needs to delete it and will do so.

It was at this point when I removed MSE in disgust and promised never to touch that filth ever again.

It's a hush-hush move on MS' part to encourage the individual to research on their own before acting. :)

HUMOR, HUMOR.

Re:MSE (1)

Sylak (1611137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570604)

I've had heuristics tell me "i don't know what this is, i'm showing it to Microsoft is that okay?" but the only "false" positives have only been things named keygen.exe and once renamed, it found nothing wrong with (most) of them ;)

Cue spooky conspiracy music (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37569932)

Every single anti-virus vendor has had false-positives in the past, but because an unrelated division of microsoft competes with an unrelated division of google, we must assume all 100,000 microsoft employees are plugged into the borg..

Re:Cue spooky conspiracy music (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570174)

The difference is: Microsoft has a reputation as a strongly anti-competitive company.

Why is this even posted? (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569938)

Even if the problem wasn't so completely lacking in newsworthiness, it was already fixed before the article got posted, so why even bother posting it?

Re:Why is this even posted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570080)

Uh, how about to warn all the IT guys out there to expect a lot of complaints about Chrome... (They come off as smarter if they know the answer before you finish the question.)

Re:Why is this even posted? (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570230)

It has already been fixed. The time to warn all the IT guys would have been when it was first reported.

Although at least it was only posted a few hours late instead of days late like usual.

Re:Why is this even posted? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570402)

In that 2 hours before the fix, an entire company PCs could have updated their signatures by IT policies and resulting in Chrome removed, or do you think the fix reinstall it?

Re:Why is this even posted? (1)

cornface (900179) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570582)

I would respond to that but you will surely just change your argument again.

Re:Why is this even posted? (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570088)

Like Slashdot would pass a chance to bash Microsoft.. ha!

Re:Why is this even posted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570168)

Like Slashdot would pass a chance to bash Microsoft.. ha!

Indeed. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why is this even posted? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570380)

Hey, usually Slashdot is about 2-3 days behind the news curve, this is lightning speed for this site.

It also allows an opportunity for stupid people to bash Microsoft.

Well, it includes a virus... (2, Insightful)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37569962)

...known as Adobe Flash.

Shoe's on the other foot (4, Funny)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570002)

After all the times AV products have flagged Windows system files!

Welcome to Botnet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37570054)

Security product analyzes and detects a botnet. Wants to remove botnet. People are surprised.

A History of "Accidental" Flaggings (1, Insightful)

sehlat (180760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570078)

Not the first time MSFT has flagged competing products as viruses.

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

And one more reason not to trust Microsoft's "security."

Re:A History of "Accidental" Flaggings (1)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570172)

Except for the fact that every security product has a plethora of false positives, I might believe your theory

This kind of error is far too obvious to be deliberate. When Microsoft wants to undermine a competitor, they're far more subtle about it.

Re:A History of "Accidental" Flaggings (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570232)

The biggest problems with false positives in most antiviruses isn't the false positives, it's that you can't do anything about them until they issue a fix. If you could just tell them "I know what I'm doing, this particular file is ok"without "disable yourself, you're fucked and need a doctor" it would be a lot more tolerable. It would also make accusations of "you're doing this to make people switch" a lot less believable.

Re:A History of "Accidental" Flaggings (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570474)

Some have a setting to tell the AV to ignore some directories. I used it when AVG flagged one of our DLLs (resource DLL, only icons, no code) as a virus, they did not respond to our request to check their signatures. So We recommended that setting to our customers or change antivirus

Not really that bad. (4, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570130)

It's not as bad as McAfee's "Oh hey, that important system file, you're not using it right? *delete*"
One of my friends was at work for nearly 2 weeks straight after that fiasco.

Latest in anti-competitive practices by MS. (2)

idbeholda (2405958) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570150)

The real reason Microsoft is flagging Chrome as a virus. Since Chrome appears to be a legitimate threat to IE (unlike FF), if enough users believe that Chrome *IS* a virus, perhaps IE will reign undisputed King Of The Browsers.

Re:Latest in anti-competitive practices by MS. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570226)

Take the "is" out of your first sentence and replace it with "was briefly".

GG Microsoft (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570272)

I really hope that the next big virus ends up being Windows itself. Microsoft only needs security essentials because they still don't know how to do secure design and secure programming. If Linux can be virus free and Unix can be virus free then really what is Microsoft's excuse, a 2nd rate OS with 10th rate performance.

Not the first thing IE has done. (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570280)

Patches to IE9 break g-mail's formatting.

Grrr..... (1)

dfannman (1680536) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570422)

Wasted a good portion of the morning hunting down a non-existent threat.

That's often the sign of a hook (1)

GerardAtJob (1245980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570478)

If a product have been detected as a virus, it's often because of keyboard/mouse hook.
Google want to know EVERYTHING ;)

Makes me really glad... (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 2 years ago | (#37570682)

...that my primary OS at home and work is Linux. I guess I'd better check when I go into the office on Monday whether Chrome has been removed from my Windows VM; but given that the Windows VM is primarily used to access the corporate Intranet (most of which absolutely requires IE anyhow, don't get me started...), losing Chrome from there isn't the end of the world. I do 99% of my web access from the Linux host system!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>