I recently stumbled across just such a false positive, in the NextCloud showcase, no less. Not much they can do about it, as far as anyone can tell.
Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
11–20 of 76 posts
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#12This is how every other browser does it too. I'd be more alarmed if my browser had an inbuilt antivirus.
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#13Firefox isn’t necessarily scanning the files for viruses, they’re often just using databases that list domains suspected of hosting malware. IIRC, Chrome does the same thing too. I think it's not much of an issue for Firefox to flag stuffs downloaded from suspected URLs as a malware since it's not uncommon to have one's system infected from those sites' content. Firefox is just trying it's best to prohibit any sort o…
I wonder why they can’t integrate some service like VirusTotal into their downloader. Sure, for heretofore new objects it’ll take longer, but they have a long list of many many file hashes and their reputation dB .
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#14Firefox isn’t necessarily scanning the files for viruses, they’re often just using databases that list domains suspected of hosting malware. IIRC, Chrome does the same thing too. I think it's not much of an issue for Firefox to flag stuffs downloaded from suspected URLs as a malware since it's not uncommon to have one's system infected from those sites' content. Firefox is just trying it's best to prohibit any sort o…
Oh, if Chrome does it, it’s totally fine for Firefox to do it, too!!
Wait, why am I not using Chrome then in the first place?
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#15Spoiler: no, sometimes flags safe content from shady sources.
... so, materially yes? As a user, I don't care that they have an excuse, I care that they said "this file is a virus" when the file was not a virus.
Not really. "Lying" includes an intent to deceive. I would have been okay with "raises false alarms", "generates false positive" or even "confuses and/or misleads users".
As a user, I want to be better safe than sorry - but would perhaps be happier with a finer classification than "no problem/OMG VIRUS!"
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#16Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#17It would be an interesting experiment to see if being direct and clear but at times inaccurate protects more novice users than being a little more wishy washy but accurate.
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#18Firefox isn’t necessarily scanning the files for viruses, they’re often just using databases that list domains suspected of hosting malware. IIRC, Chrome does the same thing too. I think it's not much of an issue for Firefox to flag stuffs downloaded from suspected URLs as a malware since it's not uncommon to have one's system infected from those sites' content. Firefox is just trying it's best to prohibit any sort o…
I wonder why they can’t integrate some service like VirusTotal into their downloader. Sure, for heretofore new objects it’ll take longer, but they have a long list of many many file hashes and their reputation dB .
Because I don't want Firefox to send what I download to some (third party) company. Or anywhere for that matter.
Their (and chrome's) current solution to block malware domains use a client-side bloom filter afaik.
If you'd try to build the same client-side into firefox, you'd have just built another (bad) antivirus software.
Might as well integrate clamav into firefox then.
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#19Spoiler: no, sometimes flags safe content from shady sources.
In my book, flagging as malware something that is not malware is lying, or at least a false positive. So, spoiler: it's a bit more nuanced than "yes" or "no".
In my book, there is a lot of distance between "lying" and "false positive"
Re: Is Firefox lying to users about viruses in downloads?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder why they can’t integrate some service like VirusTotal into their downloader. Sure, for heretofore new objects it’ll take longer, but they have a long list of many many file hashes and their reputation dB .
Because I don't want Firefox to send what I download to some (third party) company. Or anywhere for that matter. Their (and chrome's) current solution to block malware domains use a client-side bloom filter afaik. If you'd try to build the same client-side into firefox, you'd have just built another (bad) antivirus software. Might as well integrate clamav into firefox then.
Can’t they just compare hashes and for those where they have to do a scan, serve as an anonymous intermediary/proxy?