Fake Chrome apps highlight why automated scans are not enough - gHacks Tech News

Fake Chrome apps highlight why automated scans are not enough

While Mozilla is still in the process of setting up add-on signing for its Firefox web browser, Google uses the system already for apps and extensions for its Chrome web browser.

Mozilla's add-on signing efforts have been criticized as ineffective recently, and the same can be said for the automated scans that Google runs to filter out malicious extensions or apps before they are listed in the official Chrome Web Store.

A user on Reddit noticed yesterday that the Chrome Web Store would return an app called U block for Origin as the first result for the search term ublock origin.

As you can see on the screenshot below, it is the first result returned on the search results page, and while it is clearly marked as an application, will get user clicks just because of its position in the results.

ublock origin fake app

The "real" uBlock Origin application is listed as the first entry under Extensions, way below the fake entry.

The description and icons the fake apps use are taken directly from uBlock Origin as well.

Experienced computer users will spot the fake right away, but inexperienced users may not.

Further investigation revealed that the same developer has added a whole batch of fake apps to the store posing as TunnelBear, AdGuard, Browsec VPN, Easy Proxy, Hola and more.

The only purpose of the apps seems to be to lure users to a website that displays advertisement for monetization.

Each faked application has its own page on that website with a short description and a link back to the Chrome Web Store or the developer website.

It seems right now as if the sole purpose of those fake apps was to drive traffic to the website to drive up ad revenue. While that is the case, similar sites might contain attack code on top of that.

Google's automatic scan failed to realize that the apps were fake. A simple icon/description check would have resulted in a hit for instance, and while that is easy to bypass by adjusting the description and changing icons, it might prevent at least some incidents in the future.

This is not enough though to prevent this from happening again in the future and it seems likely that incidents like these will happen again unless Google changes the vetting process significantly.

Mozilla's situation is different from Google's. All extensions get reviewed manually before they are allowed in the Mozilla Add-ons Store. This is however not the case for add-ons that are submitted for signing only. While developers need to submit add-ons for signing so that Firefox Stable and Beta users can install them once add-on signing becomes mandatory, they may offer signed add-ons on third-party sites exclusively.

This means that these add-ons won't be reviewed manually by Mozilla.

Now You: What's your Chrome Store experience?

Summary
Fake Chrome apps highlight why automated scans are not enough
Article Name
Fake Chrome apps highlight why automated scans are not enough
Description
Fake apps in Chrome's Web Store show why automated scanning of apps and extensions is not enough to protect users.
Author
Advertisement

We need your help

Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.

We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.

If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:


Previous Post: «
Next Post: »

Comments

  1. Dwight Stegall said on November 28, 2015 at 10:56 am
    Reply

    U Block For Origin is no longer there.

    1. LimboSlam said on December 1, 2015 at 5:42 am
      Reply

      That’s good. Looks like my report went through as I and another user notice this first.

  2. chesscanoe said on November 28, 2015 at 2:46 pm
    Reply

    For browser efficiency and safety, I’ve always felt running with as few extensions as you can tolerate is the best practice.

  3. Tom Hawack said on November 28, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    Reply

    If I have a doubt with a Firefox add-on I download the xpi file, unzip it (it’s a plain zip file) and start searching for external calls (search for http in the code). I also have a look at included javascripts. Not being an expert makes it tougher and longer sometimes, but it’s worth it, even if surprises may be only discovered by skilled techies as they had been found several years ago with the NoScript add-on (explained and fixed later on). No idea with Google’s Chrome apps and extensions. Are they downloadable, “unzip-able”?

  4. Ikap said on November 28, 2015 at 5:39 pm
    Reply

    Chrome extension Chrome extension source viewer https://goo.gl/rvBFs4

Leave a Reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.