Google Adding Chrome Admin Policy To Uninstall Blacklisted Extensions

An anonymous reader quotes a report from BleepingComputer: Google is adding a new admin policy to Chrome that will automatically uninstall browser extensions that are blacklisted by administrators. Currently, administrators can enable a policy called "Configure extension installation blacklist" to create a blacklist of Chrome extension. These blacklisted extensions are added as individual extension ids, and once added, will prevent managed users from installing the associated extensions. To do this, Windows administrators can download Chrome's policy templates and add them to the Group Policy Editor. Once added, they will be able to configure various group polices.

While this policy prevents users from installing an extension, it does not do anything for those users who have already installed the extension. Due to this, administrators have been requesting a new group policy that will cause Chrome to remove any extension that is listed under the "Configure extension installation blacklist" policy. Google agrees and have started working on a new Chrome policy called "Uninstall blacklisted extensions" that will uninstall any extensions whose IDs have been blacklisted. In addition to removing the extensions, it will remove any associated local user data as well. The new policy is expected to be released with Chrome 75, which is heading to beta in May and expected to be released to the Stable channel in June.

Whitelist?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have expected an extension whitelist to be more useful than a blacklist when any restriction is needed at all.

Re:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm unclear on why you would use the blacklist option(except because of a quirk of notation; if memory serves just setting a whitelist doesn't automatically block everything not on it; but setting a blacklist of '*' blocks everything except extensions where being on the whitelist takes precedence); but they offer both [google.com]. (Documentation page is for the Windows GPO options; but Chrome's actual settings are mostly the same across platforms, just wrapped in the platform-native setting delivery mechanism. Only rea

Re:

[q4Fry]

So how does this thing identify addons? By their name? How hard can it be to download the addon package and modify the name before installing it locally or putting it back on the chrome store under a diff name so it gets re-signed.

It's by the identifier, which you can see in chrome://extensions. The one for uBlock Origin is "cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm". Sure, someone could try to get the code in the Chrome Web Store (or whatever they call it) another time, but user installation is less likely if the blacklisted extension has 400k installs and the workaround copy has none.

Good news

[Fernanda Yulianto]

This is good news, some add-on have dangerous script on it that can steal people information.

Re:

[Truekaiser]

The open source branch is called chromium.

A slippery slope

[etudiant]

Chrome is the preeminent global browser.
Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.
Blacklisted and removed from user installations on what basis? Who decides and what are the criteria. Is there any appeal?
Sure seems to grant a lot of trust to a firm that is quite often in the courts.

Re:

[thegarbz]

Why am I not reassured when it adds the capability to allow Google to remove blacklisted extensions.

Chrome has allowed the removal of black listed extensions for the best part of 10 years already. If you aren't re-assured as a result of this announcement then your brain isn't functioning.

All they are doing here is allowing corporate IT to set more policy controls over their computers where Chrome is used.

Re:

[rtb61]

I don't understand what blacklisting extension are even doing. On managed computers all the extensions allowed to be used, should be available only from a local server and those Chrome books and should not talk to google ever, except for search, then still technically they should duckduckgo.

On managed computer all acceptable extensions should be set by managed, with specific extensions for specific users and the update files should be downloaded from Google and stored locally. Google should have zero contr