Google improves the password management feature in Chrome 88
Google released a new stable version of the company's Chrome web browser to the public this week. Chrome 88 fixed security issues and removed Adobe Flash among other things.
Google improved the browser's password management capabilities in the release. Chrome users who save passwords in the browser may access two new password management related options in the release.
The first enables users to check for weak passwords. Google does not reveal how Chrome determines that a password is weak; possibilities include comparing password hashes with hashes of leaked passwords, or checking if duplicate passwords are stored.
Chrome users who want to give it a go need to do the following:
- Load chrome://settings/passwords in the browser's address bar.
- Select the "check passwords" link on the page.
- Chrome opens a new page on which all weak passwords that it detected during the scan are listed.
Information why Chrome considers a password weak is not provided, only that they are "easy to guess".
Google added the "change password" option to Chrome 86; it opens a standardized change password page on the host site. The site needs to support it to be of any use, as you may get a "not found" error otherwise.
A new feature in Chrome 88 is hidden behind the three-dots menu. Select "edit password" to edit the password directly in the Chrome web browser.
The features are being rolled out over the course of the coming weeks. Some Chrome users will have to wait before it becomes available in the browser.
Chrome users who don't want to wait can set flags in the browser to enable the functionality:
- Load chrome://flags/#edit-passwords-in-settings and change the state of the flag to Enabled; this enables the password edit option.
- Load chrome://flags/#passwords-weakness-check and change the flag to Enabled; this enables the option to check stored passwords for weaknesses.
A restart of the browser is required.
Closing Words
Google says that its safety check feature resulted in a 37% reduction of compromised credentials in the Chrome browser. The weak password check may help users who save passwords in the browser, provided that they change the passwords that were found to be weak.
Now You: did you check your passwords for weaknesses in the past?
I do not like my passwords taken over my some foreign entity. So how shall i go about the management of my logons, domain info, passwords and get a 100% warranty that they are save from mentioned foreign agents especially google which is famous for stealing and later controlling everything along the way. I already feel dire consequences along the way of the new US administration and the censoring of a US president.
@Benjamin
Google does not steal anything.
Google does not control everything.
The former US presdident was not censored.
He was banned from spreading dangerous lies and falsehoods. According to rules that apply to everybody and only after multiple warnings.
“how shall i go”
Local.
You find reviews of respective password managers here on Ghacks:
https://www.ghacks.net/?s=local+password+manager
@Jim Vanderbilt
Except that the former US president was indeed censored. Freedom of speech does not imply a factual correctness of the output, at all. If only 100% verified and verifiable statements could be uttered, we would be reduced to a few lines in our entire lives. Quite literally. That’s not human nature, that is the nature of robots!
The solution? If you think that someone is lying, put out a counter-statement which corrects it, and hope that truth will prevail. This is assuming that people are somewhat enlightened, needless to say. Censoring people is just power play, a product of a totalitarian mindset. Historically, you will find that censorship was never about protecting the truth(TM).
Don’t tell me that the companies banning Trump were acting within the realm of private property. You know, this argument totally fails to consider the monopoly power these companies have amassed. Facebook and Twitter have made themselves instrumental in reaching the masses, and insofar they themselves are limited in the type of speech they can justifiably limit.
I am noticing a general decline in the appreciation of democratic values (such as free speech), and a trend towards totalitarianism. This worries me deeply, but history is indeed like a pendulum, and seemingly it’s swinging back from democracy to dictatorship in our day. Going by your stance towards obvious censorship, I consider you a proponent of the latter.
@Chekov: ‘I am noticing a general decline in the appreciation of democratic values (such as free speech), and a trend towards totalitarianism. This worries me deeply, but history is indeed like a pendulum, and seemingly it’s swinging back from democracy to dictatorship in our day’.
You are totally right. Even Merkel is worried about the removal of Trump on Twitter and wants that a judge to do a verdict.
The background of her opinion is rooted in the Nazi history of Germany.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”- George Santayana
Private companies can have whatever rules they want and can ban users for any reason they want, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech since that only applies to the government. It means you can’t be arrested, fined, thrown in jail, flogged, etc. by the government for speaking your mind. It does not mean you can say whatever you want on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Anyway it’s getting really annoying hearing all the whining every time a post about Google Chrome comes up, this is a tech site not a politics site. If you don’t want to use Chrome you don’t have to but please shut up about it, no one cares.
This is just FALSE:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/13/us/google-location-tracking-police.html
The government and Big Tech are in the same boat.
And the Project PRISM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
Squiggy, you are crazy, password manager in chrome is very relevant with the freedom to tell on the internet whatever we want and call others to kill other people based on their color or sexual orientation. Private companies should tolerate our sick soul and mind. I am sacrastic of course.
@Choco
“I see left politicians calling for the death of Trump”
No you don’t.
“With clear messages of calls for violence against him”
Second falsehood, still in the first sentence.
@Chekov
You talk about “100% verified and verifiable statements” ?
The orange moron was allowed to send out 100 thousands of lies without any consequences.
Only using lies to start a violent riot got him banned.
“Don’t tell me that the companies banning Trump were acting within the realm of private property.”
Of course I do.
“I am noticing a trend towards totalitarianism.”
I did, too. But with that crook leaving the whitehouse things look so much better.
in sleepy joe you trust. leave ghacks free of your crap!!!
@Jim Vanderbilt
Lying is a part of human nature, in politicians it is more present than in anyone else… Sometimes politicians even have to lie even to protect certain government interests. I repeat again, for you: Freedom of speech does not imply factual correctness or overall quality of the output. There is no connection between the two, you don’t lose your basic human rights just because you lie like everyone else does.
Moreover, it is very naive on your part to think that Trump was anything close to a “dictator”. In order to verify that claim, you’d have to provide me with some evidence. As factual correctness of the output is a pre-requisite of freedom of speech according to you, you should just shut up if you can’t provide any, because then you have forsaken your right to talk about the topic. See how respectful this line of thinking is?
Anyway, I do not see any evidence that any actual reforms (as in, you know, actual laws) took place under Trump that could have turned the US into a dictatorship. It’s also clear to me that Trump was constantly fighting with the media and the courts and parliament, in my book an actual dictator would have to have had full control of all three.
As far as private property is concerned, in my country (not the US), you don’t suddenly lose your basic human rights when dealing with a private company. Suppose one has a shop, and puts up a sign at the front door “(X ethnicity) is not allowed entry here, we don’t sell to (X ethnicity)!”, then this is illegal in my country. You can’t just discriminate like that with “private property” being the cited reason.
In my country, courts have ruled that if a social media platform has reached a certain relevance, it has to behave akin to the state in guaranteeing freedom of speech. Big social media is state-alike public space, if you will, and for monopolists like Twitter and Facebook this would certainly apply. If you lose all your human rights when dealing with private companies (which I don’t think is the case in the US, either), then your understanding of what a human right is seems to be quite backwards. The right of private property is a human right, too, but it doesn’t just mute or supersede all other human rights.
Last but not least, some words of wisdom: “Treat the other like you yourself want to be treated.” You can find this basic sentiment with religious personas like Jesus, but also with many of the great philosophers. These people were not dumb or ignorant when they crafted this statement in all its semantic variations. If you are being tyrannical – and going by the support of the media / courts / parliament which the Left has but the Right (in my humble opinion) lacked, the potential is definitely there – you also have to accept the same treatment for yourself if your preferred faction ever loses power. And in history, nothing lasted forever. Democracy was meant to prevent a downward spiral of revenge, violence, and civil war. Leaving that path by limiting human rights might lead to unfortunate results.
You know, I have no dog in this fight, as I am not a US citizen, just an outside observer. I get nothing out of you voting for either that person or that person, I get nothing out of your country being stable or in turmoil. I merely present my observations here because I am concerned about a trend towards totalitarianism that is not just limited to the US.
@Chekov
“I repeat again, for you: Freedom of speech does not imply factual correctness”
I repeat: I never made that claim.
I repeat: Trump was not banned for lying.
I repeat: Trump lied 100’000 times, was not banned.
“to think that Trump was dictator”
I don’t.
He was a wannabe-dictator kissing every dictator’s ass.
“in my country you don’t lose basic human rights …”
Starting a riot via Twitter is not a basic human right.
“A shop puts up a sign (X ethnicity) is not allowed entry here”
No, but every shop bans shoplifters.
“Support of the media / courts / parliament which the Left has but the Right (in my humble opinion) lacked”
That’s not an opinion.
That’s one of Trump’s lies.
“You know, I have no dog in this fight as I am not a US citizen”
You know, me neither.
“just an outside observer”
Same here.
“I get nothing out of your country being stable or in turmoil.”
Same same.
“I merely present my observations here because I am concerned about a trend towards totalitarianism”
No, you are not.
You are trying to promote Trumpism and you know it.
Read Squiggy’s comment below, quit politics on tech blogs.
@Jim Vanderbilt
Even if Trump lied a million times, he is still within his right to freedom speech, for better or worse. Facebook and Twitter are in a very strong position in the market and therefore should act akin to public space, with great power comes the responsibility not to trample on basic human rights because you feel like it.
You are very aggressive and dishonest in the points you raise. See, you say that Trump is a “dictator” in one of your prior comments, and since a change from democracy to dictatorship is a strong shift in governmental order for which there surely must be some proof, I ask you for proof (proof as in laws(!) changed that would make the US a dictatorship) and your reply is: “But he is licking the boots of dictators!”
Licking the boots of dictators (again, no proof provided by you whatsoever) ≠Trump is a dictator, it’s just not the same thing. Besides, if “cooperating with dictators” is the sole criterion for Trump being one, then most of his predecessors were objectively also dictators.
Then you come around with the “riots”, and again, I would have to ask: Show me the insurrectionist parts of the army, tanks in the streets, planes in the air firing at each other, or – if you think of an insurrection of the citizenship – armed mobs in most major cities of the country, burning barricades and streets, citizens firing at each other all over the place… Sorry, but 70 fairly misguided people entering the Capitol building and being driven away by the police force is not an “insurrection”. The French Revolution had insurrections, if you need a point of reference in history.
If Trump controlled the courts, media, and parliament, like an actual dictator would have, then it seems odd to me that media reports were very critical of him, that courts repealed his measures again and again, and that parliament tried to depose him. If he was behind all this, in accordance with your claim that he controlled it all, then this seems extremely shizophrenic, for lack of a better word.
It’s all hyperbole: “dictatorship”, “riots”, it only shows that you have never gotten in contact with either, because then you would know what those terms actually mean. Sorry to say.
Again, I am not a US citizen, I have not in any way profited from Trump being president, and with all likelihood I won’t profit from Biden being president. Me being a “Trumpist” is a ridiculous line of thinking, because supporting a person thousands upon thousands of miles away, a person that was never helpful to me in any way, shape, or form, seems like a very irrational line of thinking to me. I don’t care for the US much (give me a reason to…), but this sentiment doesn’t mean that you have the right to mistake me for stupid. You raise some lofty claims, and I am merely asking for convincing proof, as any inquirer could. I see no reason to look at some head of state as if he were devil incarnate, the only thing coming out of it would be me spewing hyperbole like you do, again without any benefit coming to me. If not applying hyperbole when talking about Trump makes me a Trumpist, then I guess this is my destiny in a world of black and white thinking.
You quote from my comment all over the place, oftentimes ripping statements out of context, but you fail to consider what I deem to be the most important advice: Treat others like you yourself would want to be treated! The “If you are not for me, you are against me!” line of thinking, along with all the abuses of power associated with it, are a recipe for civil strife, violence, lawlessness, and vicious cycles of revenge. Not a good foundation for any kind of society. You should maintain a solid degree of fairness towards, especially, people disagreeing with you, to your political opponents.
“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.”
– Rosa Luxemburg, socialist writer and revolutionary.
@Chekov
I sincerely apologize for hurting your feelings.
And I wish you all the best.