Surf Protection Does Not Work With Google Chrome 69.0.3497.81

[SquirmyElk2 0]

When I tried to use surf protection in Google Chrome version 69.0.3497.81, I couldn't get any of my surf protection features to work correctly (It wouldn't block websites I entered). I think Edge has always had this problem and now Chrome has it as well.

[onbox 6]

yes, Surf Protection does not work in the new version of chrome....

[SquirmyElk2 0]

Should I report this to Google?

[Cister 1]

Same here, surf Protection does not work with new Chrome 69.

[JeremyNicoll 45]

I don't think there's any point in reporting it to Google.  They know... assuming it's the same problem as discussed here:

https://support.emsisoft.com/topic/29872-chrome-wants-eam-updated-or-removed/

 

[slopes 3]

Time to shop for a new browser, any recommendations?

[onbox 6]

3 hours ago, slopes said:

Time to shop for a new browser, any recommendations?

Opera?

[onbox 6]

Emsisoft work fine with Opera!!!

[stapp 120]

EAM works fine for me using Vivaldi or Opera.

[m0unds 4]

that's fun. firefox doesn't block code injection yet, but it's on their roadmap for q4 2018/q1 2019. i'd also expect opera to start doing it if they merge upstream changes from chromium. *EDIT* Opera is tracking Chromium 69 for Opera 56, and Vivaldi is tracking Chromium 69 for Vivaldi 2.x.

 

[slopes 3]

We are really running out of options for surfprotection

[Ken1943 3]

I never used the HOSTS file but, maybe time to start ???

 

[SquirmyElk2 0]

(Absurdist nonsense) You know, some other antivirus software has browser extensions (that come with the software) and there are even extensions on the chrome store that block sites. I wonder if it would be a good idea if there was a browser extension that came with Emsisoft.

45 minutes ago, Ken1943 said:

I never used the HOSTS file but, maybe time to start ???

 

I don't even know how to use the hosts file. I do know where it is located, however.

[Ken1943 3]

All depends if Google thinks extensions also cause a problem. Remember Google wants to know everything about you and control how you use the internet.

That is the whole problem, no one knows what Google will do. I think including Google.

[m0unds 4]

1 hour ago, SquirmyElk2 said:

(Absurdist nonsense) You know, some other antivirus software has browser extensions (that come with the software) and there are even extensions on the chrome store that block sites. I wonder if it would be a good idea if there was a browser extension that came with Emsisoft.

that's what google would prefer, yes. browser mfgs would prefer third parties stop injecting code into their processes - you already can't do it with edge because of appcontainer isolation, and google and others are tired of being blamed for every browser crash that could be caused by third party code they have no control over. additionally, there are instances where code injection can unintentionally compromise browser security.

re: hosts stuff, i would avoid writing large lists to your hosts file as it will significantly slow DNS queries as system has to examine it first.

@Ken1943 - as i mentioned, other browsers using chromium (open source project) are merging in the same changes being made to chrome, as is mozilla with firefox (q4 2018 / q1 2019) so this is not purely a "google wants to know everything" concern.

 

[GT500 496]

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-will-block-third-party-software-from-injecting-code-into-chrome/

Our Surf Protection works by filtering DNS requests made by running applications. Since EAM doesn't use network filter drivers, it has to achieve this using code injection. Now that Chromium is blocking code injection by third-party applications, our Surf Protection will not work with it until we are able to make some changes.

My recommendation is to install uBlock Origin and uBlock Origin Extra (both work in Google Chrome and Vivaldi) to supplement until we can get our Surf Protection working in Chrome again. uBlock Origin is a free content blocker that not only blocks ads, but also used the extensive blacklists of malicious domains available from Malware Domain List and Malware Domains to block malicious content.

Note: Vivaldi 1.15 (the current stable version) is based on Chromium 65 with backported security fixes from Chromium 66, 67, and 68. Vivaldi 2.0 is based on Chromium 69, and is currently available in testing builds. Anyone with the stable version of Vivaldi installed will not be effected by this issue. Anyone using a Vivaldi 2.0 snapshot will also experience this issue with Surf Protection.

Also note: Due to the added protection of an ad blocker, we recommend uBlock Origin (with uBlock Origin Extra for Chromium based browsers like Google Chrome, Vivaldi, and Opera) regardless of whether or not our Surf Protection is working with your web browser. Anti-Virus/Anti-Malware does not block ads by default (doing so can break some websites), and the companies that sell online advertising do not do a good enough job of preventing their ads from being abused by their clients, and there have been many cases of serious threats in advertisements even on legitimate websites.

Please be aware that there is another content blocker called "uBlock". This is not the same thing as uBlock Origin, and is not recommended.

The main reason for recommending uBlock Origin is due to its performance and memory usage being better than popular ad blockers (AdBlock, Adblock Plus, AdGuard, etc). If you wish to use one of those instead, then please feel free to do so, however I do not know if they are configured to use Malware Domain List and Malware Domains by default and recommend checking their configuration to ensure they are offering the same level of protection as uBlock Origin. If they are not configured to use these lists of malicious websites, then you should be able to add them through FilterLists.com. Note that this site was down at the time I posted this, so I was not able to check and verify that, however this site lists almost every popular filter list for ad and content blockers and it should include important blacklists like these.

[slopes 3]

What would be better, Chrome with ublock orgin or edge?Does edge use any type of blacklist?

[GT500 496]

Edge has SmartScreen, and Chromium has Google Safe Browsing.

Note that the version of uBlock Origin that is available for Edge is maintained by a third party, is technically a beta, and there has not been a new release since April 9th (v1.15.24). The official uBlock Origin was last updated on August 26th, and is version 1.16.20, so the version for Edge is a bit out of date. It does technically work, and it may simply not be in need of an update, however our Surf Protection doesn't work with Edge in its current form so I don't see you being any safer with Edge than with Google Chrome.

Also note that our Surf Protection should still work fine with Firefox, however Firefox doesn't support IOfficeAntiVirus, so any files you download in Firefox won't be automatically scanned by Emsisoft Anti-Malware (unless you change the scan level to "Thorough" in the File Guard settings in Emsisoft Anti-Malware). Edge and Chromium (and thus any Chromium-based browsers) support IOfficeAntiVirus, and so there is no need to change File Guard settings when using these browsers as they will ask Emsisoft Anti-Malware to scan downloaded files via the IOfficeAntiVirus API.

[slopes 3]

I just noticed https has returned in version 69.0.3497.92

[GT500 496]

On 9/15/2018 at 4:41 PM, slopes said:

I just noticed https has returned in version 69.0.3497.92

Google had made the decision to hide certain parts of addresses (URL's) by default. They've temporarily reversed that decision, however it looks like it will happen again in Chrome 70.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/chrome-69-removing-www-and-m-subdomains-from-the-browsers-address-bar/
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/chrome-69-shows-the-www-and-m-subdomains-again-but-it-s-only-temporary/

[slopes 3]

41 minutes ago, GT500 said:

Google had made the decision to hide certain parts of addresses (URL's) by default. They've temporarily reversed that decision, however it looks like it will happen again in Chrome 70.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/chrome-69-removing-www-and-m-subdomains-from-the-browsers-address-bar/
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/chrome-69-shows-the-www-and-m-subdomains-again-but-it-s-only-temporary/

I hope they change their minds and keep it

Thanks GT500

[GT500 496]

You're welcome.

[SquirmyElk2 0]

Is it just me, but is it working in 69.0.3497.100? Must be Emsisoft working it out here...???!!!!🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[GT500 496]

As part of phase 2 of Google's plan to block injection into Chrome, if Chrome crashes then it will allow injection on the assumption that blocking it caused the crash, which would (at least temporarily) allow our Surf Protection to start working again. This behavior should change in phase 3.

This can be tested by entering/pasting the following into the address bar in Chrome, and then pressing Enter on your keyboard:

chrome://inducebrowsercrashforrealz

Important: Doing this will force a complete crash of Google Chrome, meaning every tab and every extension will close with it. This also applies to any other Chromium based browsers (Opera 15+, Vivaldi, etc).

After crashing, the next time you open Chrome it will show you a list of applications that inject code into Chrome, and claim they are incompatible and ask you to update or remove them. This includes Emsisoft Anti-Malware.

[Quirky 6]

On 9/10/2018 at 12:46 AM, slopes said:

Time to shop for a new browser, any recommendations?

Try Pale Moon, one of the few sane browsers left. Zero issues with Surf Protection, too.

[m0unds 4]

9 hours ago, CBMman said:

Try Pale Moon, one of the few sane browsers left. Zero issues with Surf Protection, too.

seeing as they track & merge the majority of Mozilla's security code changes in Firefox, I wouldn't count on them continuing to allow code injection if Firefox ends up blocking it in the next few mos.

[Quirky 6]

That is not a given at all. They are very different browsers now and distance in only growing. Such a "merge" might not even be applicable due to the aforementioned differences, both in underlying technology and even developer mentality. In any case, we will see. Now Surf Protection works, as always. The future? No one can predict that.

[GT500 496]

Give us some time, and we'll do what we can to address this, whether a browser blocks code injection or not.

[GT500 496]

FYI: https://blog.emsisoft.com/en/32110/emsisoft-anti-malware-2018-9-beta/

Download Image

[GT500 496]

If anyone wants to try the beta, then here's how to update to it:

1. Open Emsisoft Anti-Malware.
2. Click on the little gear icon on the left side of the Emsisoft Anti-Malware window (roughly in the middle).
3. Click on Updates in the menu at the top.
4. On the left, in the Updates section, look for Update feed.
5. Click on the box to the right of where it says Update feed, and select Beta from the list.
6. Right-click on the little Emsisoft icon in the lower-right corner of the screen (to the left of the clock).
7. Select Update now from the list.
   

[m0unds 4]

huzzah. thanks for the heads up.

[GT500 496]

You're welcome.

[GT500 496]

FYI: Version 2018.9 has been released as a Stable update:
https://blog.emsisoft.com/en/32084/new-in-2018-9-improved-surf-protection-and-new-dark-mode/

If it hasn't already, it should be automatically installed the next time Emsisoft Anti-Malware checks for updates.

[MJmusicguy 2]

it only partly works  it will work on  browser start but overtime stops working for vivaldi anyway 

[stapp 120]

Using Vivaldi 2  and surf protection works OK here.

[GT500 496]

On 10/3/2018 at 3:43 PM, MJmusicguy said:

it only partly works  it will work on  browser start but overtime stops working for vivaldi anyway 

See response here: