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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          17·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • redcalcium@lemmy.instituteEnglish
            30·
            11 months ago

            They don’t need to touch it. If you login using your company’s google account, they automatically has access via their MDM console.

          • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.mlEnglish
            10·
            11 months 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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              11·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.mlEnglish
                4·
                11 months ago

                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?

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  8·
                  11 months ago

                  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?

      • maychance@infosec.pubEnglish
        16·
        11 months ago

        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.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            11 months ago

            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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          10·
          11 months ago

          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.

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    11 months ago

    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.

      • omnomed@lemmy.worldEnglish
        27·
        11 months ago

        Basically microsoft has a deal with them which makes them give aggregate data to microsoft. Which led to this.

        P.S. : I am primarily still using ddg in case someone’s thinking I’m an anti or something.

          • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.mlEnglish
            6·
            11 months ago

            I use both SearX and LibreX alongside DDG and that helps with 99% of my daily search online.

            If I need to use Google for search, I do so in my tor browser.

            • Vt1984@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Vt1984@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  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?

              • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                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.

          • Virtual Insanity @lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.netEnglish
              5·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Virtual Insanity @lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                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.

            • Fat Tony@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              11 months ago

              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.

            • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • Virtual Insanity @lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

      • Skye@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        11 months ago

        Eyy! You took the words out of my mouth! I don’t mind paying for a search engine if it’s good lol

  • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    41·
    11 months ago

    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

  • Christopher Masto@lemmy.masto.communityEnglish
    28·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      11 months ago

      I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted; out of curiosity I just now tried it on Windows myself (Google Chrome 120.0.6099.130 Official Build 64-bit) by typing mozilla.org, clicking “Firefox downloads” at the top, and selecting the one for Windows. It sailed through almost instantly.

      BUT - just because it worked for me personally on a completely different machine, OS, and installer doesn’t mean OP is misrepresenting what happened to him; competitive app blocking has certainly happened with Edge. For all we know it’s some Google A/B trial bullshit, no telling at this point.

  • ratman150@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    10·
    11 months ago

    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.

  • TurboWafflz@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    11 months ago

    Did you download it over http instead of https? I know firefox blocks http downloads by default now so I could see chrome doing the same

  • fne8w2ah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    11 months ago

    The irony. I use Vivaldi Browser now and may consider switching to Fennec if Firefox ever implements tab stacks.

  • katy ✨English
    7·
    11 months ago

    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)