“AV is my single biggest impediment to shipping a secure browser.”

Re:“AV is my single biggest impediment to shipping a secure ... by Bartweiss on Thursday December 01, 2016 @12:45PM (#13081517)

But to be very clear, the core complaint isn't the injection.

It's that AV - basically all AV - is buggy and insecure in totally unrelated, internal ways. It does shockingly dangerous and irresponsible things like leaving exposed debug frameworks on a program with kernel access.

So my concern about AV's browser injection isn't "they should interface better". It's "this is shamefully bad and dangerous software that I want to uninstall, so it should stay out of my browser". Fixing that isn't a problem for Chrome devs, it's about making a product safe enough to contemplate interfacing with. (There are a handful of AV contenders for that, and I don't object to them.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“AV is my single biggest impediment to shipping a secure ... by Elrac on Friday December 02, 2016 @09:33AM (#13088781)

I've hated AV products for decades for being intrusive, cumbersome, slow and often nagware. Thanks to this post, I can now add "insecure" to my list of reasons.

But I'm commenting to ask you to expand on

> "There are a handful of AV contenders for that."

Could you be pleaded to drop some names?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“AV is my single biggest impediment to shipping a secure ... by Neliquat on Thursday December 01, 2016 @06:55PM (#13084754)

It is the injection preventing code checking. You are missing a majority of the point. Even if it 'worked' it still prevents a more elegant, efficient, and effective process of sandboxing and self checks.

[ Parent | on HN ]