Jump to content

Welcome to nsane.forums

Welcome to nsane.forums, like most online communities you need to register to view parts of our community or to make contributions, but don't worry: this is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of nsane.forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Access special members only forums
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates

 

Please note: Unfortunetely due to some server side issues, registration via Hotmail / Outlook email addresses do not work, members are requested to use some other email addresses like Gmail to register here.


Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'google'.

The search index is currently processing. Current results may not be complete.


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station

Found 6 results

  1. Google Chrome Software Removal Tool is an easy-to-use program which tries to get a broken Chrome installation working again.Launch it and the tool scans your PC for programs which Google considers "suspicious" or "known to cause problems with Chrome", and offers to remove them. Bizarrely, the CSRT won't give you the names of these suspicious programs, so you'll have to trust it. Or you can just run the program to see if it thinks there are any, then click "Cancel" instead of "Remove" when the report appears. Whatever you do, once the scan is complete, CSRT launches Chrome with the chrome://settings/resetProfileSettings command, prompting you to reset your Chrome settings. Click "Reset" and Chrome will be reset to its default settings, otherwise just close the window to continue as usual. There are no other settings or options, nothing else to do at all. Google provides few details of what the Chrome Software Removal Tool actually does. They do claim. Find programs and components that affect Chrome If you notice changes in the settings of your Chrome browser, there is a small utility that can help you identify the issue and correct it. Created by Google itself, it goes by the name of Chrome Cleanup Tool (Google Chrome Software Removal Tool), enabling you to detect programs that interfere with Google Chrome and remove them. Since toolbars, browser add-ons and pop-up ads are not typical malware, your antivirus solution might fail to detect their presence. Chrome Cleanup Tool is specifically designed to find programs and components whose installation resulted in modifications of Chrome's settings, providing you with a simple means to reset them. Remove interfering components with a click The application does not require installation and starts looking for suspicious programs as soon as you launch it. The number of findings are displayed within a small window, along with an option to remove them all, but their names are not revealed, so as to prevent name modifications that might cause Chrome Cleanup Tool not to work as it should. In some cases, a system reboot might be required in order for the changes to take effect. Once the issue is fixed, Chrome restarts and prompts you to reset the browser settings. Scan for malicious programs that cause issues with Chrome Chrome Cleanup Tool is an attempt to enhance the browsing experience of Chrome users, providing them with a simple method to factory reset the settings and remove programs that cause trouble to the browser. More aggressive malware might be impossible to remove or detect, so you might need a reputable antivirus solution to clean the system. Note that this application is not designed to search for all types of viruses and malware components, but only those that cause issues with Google Chrome. Homepage Download: Link 1 Link 2
  2. Google Chrome Software Removal Tool is an easy-to-use program which tries to get a broken Chrome installation working again.Launch it and the tool scans your PC for programs which Google considers "suspicious" or "known to cause problems with Chrome", and offers to remove them. Bizarrely, the CSRT won't give you the names of these suspicious programs, so you'll have to trust it. Or you can just run the program to see if it thinks there are any, then click "Cancel" instead of "Remove" when the report appears. Whatever you do, once the scan is complete, CSRT launches Chrome with the chrome://settings/resetProfileSettings command, prompting you to reset your Chrome settings. Click "Reset" and Chrome will be reset to its default settings, otherwise just close the window to continue as usual. There are no other settings or options, nothing else to do at all. Google provides few details of what the Chrome Software Removal Tool actually does. They do claim. Find programs and components that affect Chrome If you notice changes in the settings of your Chrome browser, there is a small utility that can help you identify the issue and correct it. Created by Google itself, it goes by the name of Chrome Cleanup Tool (Google Chrome Software Removal Tool), enabling you to detect programs that interfere with Google Chrome and remove them. Since toolbars, browser add-ons and pop-up ads are not typical malware, your antivirus solution might fail to detect their presence. Chrome Cleanup Tool is specifically designed to find programs and components whose installation resulted in modifications of Chrome's settings, providing you with a simple means to reset them. Remove interfering components with a click The application does not require installation and starts looking for suspicious programs as soon as you launch it. The number of findings are displayed within a small window, along with an option to remove them all, but their names are not revealed, so as to prevent name modifications that might cause Chrome Cleanup Tool not to work as it should. In some cases, a system reboot might be required in order for the changes to take effect. Once the issue is fixed, Chrome restarts and prompts you to reset the browser settings. Scan for malicious programs that cause issues with Chrome Chrome Cleanup Tool is an attempt to enhance the browsing experience of Chrome users, providing them with a simple method to factory reset the settings and remove programs that cause trouble to the browser. More aggressive malware might be impossible to remove or detect, so you might need a reputable antivirus solution to clean the system. Note that this application is not designed to search for all types of viruses and malware components, but only those that cause issues with Google Chrome. Homepage Download: Link 1 Link 2
  3. Google’s conduct is a “willful and contemptuous disregard of various court orders.” The Justice Department is demanding that a federal judge sanction Google for failing to abide by court orders to turn over data tied to 22 e-mail accounts. "Google's conduct here amounts to a willful and contemptuous disregard of various court orders," the government wrote (PDF) in a legal filing to US District Judge Richard Seeborg of California. The government added in its Wednesday brief: Google is entitled to have its own view of the law and to press that view before a court of competent jurisdiction. However, when faced with a valid court order, Google, like any other person or entity, must either comply with such an order or face consequences severe enough to deter willful noncompliance. The issue before this court is what sanction is sufficient to achieve that goal. Google said it wasn't complying with the order because it was on appeal. Google also said it was following precedent from a New York-based federal appellate court that ruled Microsoft doesn't have to comply with a valid US warrant for data if the information is stored on overseas servers. Google is appealing the California warrant to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on the same grounds. However, neither Seeborg nor the 9th Circuit is bound by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' decision— which the government has appealed to the US Supreme Court. (The US circuit courts of appeal are not bound to follow rulings by their sister circuits, but they all must obey precedent from the Supreme Court.) "Google therefore does not intend to comply with the August 14 Order while seeking appellate review," the company wrote Judge Seeborg. Google was asking the court to be held in civil contempt in a bid to speed up the appellate process of its case. Such a move, which on its face seems counterintuitive, has been done before. In the Microsoft case, the government and Microsoft agreed to have Microsoft held in contempt so as to hasten the appellate process and get that case before the Supreme Court in a quicker fashion than without a contempt ruling. What's different now, however, is that the government wants the judge to sanction Google as well. The government did not seek sanctions against Microsoft, and it didn't seek sanctions against Google in a different case on the topic of whether the US tech sector must comply with US warrants for data stored on overseas servers. According to Google: The government agreed to a similar stipulation in the Microsoft case, and indeed it recently entered into such a stipulation with Google in another jurisdiction with stayed sanctions identical to those Google sought here. In this case, however—despite this Court's recognition that Google is proceeding in good faith in this litigation to seek clarity on an important legal issue—the government refused to enter into any stipulation with a stay of sanctions. The government noted that "the customary sanction for an individual's refusal to comply with court-ordered disclosure is immediate imprisonment." But the authorities are not pressing for that because "a corporate entity obviously cannot be imprisoned for its refusal to comply with a court order, the usual contempt sanction imposed against corporate entities is a fine." Evil Google The government, meanwhile, accused Google of fashioning a system that kept consumer data stored on various servers across the globe—just so it could defy court orders. Even more alarming is the fact that Google went out of its way, spending thousands of man-hours and forgoing other engineering projects, all so that it would be positioned to refuse to disclose any of its foreign-stored data—or, more precisely, any data it could not confirm was held in the United States—without seeking judicial relief or guidance and without limiting its new tooling to be used for warrants issued out of the Second Circuit. While it's not clear that any amount of monetary sanctions could hurt Google's bottom line, the search giant has two weeks until it must respond. A hearing will come soon after. "The discrepancies in court decisions underlines our view that data surveillance laws need to be modernized to safeguard users' privacy, protect law enforcement's legitimate need to collect digital evidence, and provide clarity," Google said in a statement. This story becomes even more legally complex and nuanced because Google has agreed to comply with warrants if they seek data that is on one of its oversees servers. But despite challenging dozens of warrants, it has given up fresh challenges while continuing to fight others that were in the legal pipeline. Google and other services began challenging US warrants for overseas data after a federal appeals court sided with Microsoft last year in a first-of-its-kind challenge. Microsoft convinced the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals—which has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, and Vermont—that US search-and-seizure law does not require compliance with a warrant to turn over data stored on its servers in Ireland. The Supreme Court is expected to announce any day whether it will hear the government's appeal of that Microsoft case, which has huge privacy ramifications for consumers and for the tech sector. The sector is being asked by the US government to comply with court orders that sometimes conflict with the laws of where the data is stored. Courts outside the 2nd Circuit's jurisdiction have routinely scoffed at that court's Microsoft ruling and have ordered companies to comply with warrants if they can access the data from within the United States, regardless of where the data is stored. < Here >
  4. Last Friday, someone in Google fat-thumbed a border gateway protocol (BGP) advertisement and sent Japanese Internet traffic into a black hole. The trouble began when The Chocolate Factory “leaked” a big route table to Verizon, the result of which was traffic from Japanese giants like NTT and KDDI was sent to Google on the expectation it would be treated as transit. Since Google doesn't provide transit services, as BGP Mon explains, that traffic either filled a link beyond its capacity, or hit an access control list, and disappeared. The outage in Japan only lasted a couple of hours, but was so severe that Japan Times reports the country's Internal Affairs and Communications ministries want carriers to report on what went wrong. BGP Mon dissects what went wrong here, reporting that more than 135,000 prefixes on the Google-Verizon path were announced when they shouldn't have been. Since it leaked what the monitors call “a full table” to Verizon, the fat-thumb error also provided a “peek into what Google's peering relationships look like and how their peers traffic engineer towards Google”. For example, BGP Mon explains how the mistake hit ISP Jastel (Jasmine Telecom) in Thailand: “If we take a closer look at the AS paths involved starting at the right side, we see the prefix was announced by 45629 (Jastel) as expected. Since Jastel peers with Google (15169) that’s the next AS we see. The next AS in the path is 701 (Verizon) and this is where it is getting interesting as Verizon has now started to provide transit for Jastel via Google. “Verizon (701) then announced that to several of it’s customers, some of them very large such as KPN (286) and Orange (5511). So by just looking at four example paths we can see it hit large networks in Europe, Latin America, the US, and India (9498 Airtel).” BGP is the Internet's protocol for distributing routing information between networks. A BGP advertisement shouts out to the rest of the internet to announce things like “if you give me traffic for Verizon, it will reach its destination”. Designed for a more trusting (and much smaller) Internet, BGP's most serious shortcoming is that it's up to network admins to check and filter information in route advertisements. As BGP Mon notes, BGP leaks are “a great risk to the Internet's stability”, and both sides of an advertisement should be filtering them before accepting them. Previous BGP incidents have sent YouTube traffic to Pakistan, blackholed Chinese traffic, made Belarus the default route for more traffic than it could handle, and redirected Level 3's traffic to Malaysia. There are various proposals to tweak BGP to stop this sort of thing happening, but as is so often the case, implementation is lagging far behind requirement. Article BGPMON - explanation of cause of outages in Japan and beyond
  5. The “Unknown Sources” security option in Android is known by many. This is what needs to be ticked in order to install apps downloaded from outside of the Google Play Store, whether it’s an app that hasn’t officially rolled out yet, an app not available in your region, APKs from one of the Humble Mobile Bundles, or something else. In Android Oreo, Google has changed the way in which this works in order to make Android safer. Rather than being a single switch for all unknown sources, this option now comes in the form of an individual Install Unknown Apps permission that needs to be approved each time you install an app downloaded from outside of Google Play. “When used on a device running Android O and higher, hostile downloaders cannot trick the user into installing an app without having first been given the go-ahead,” states Android Security Product Manager Edward Cunningham on the Android Developers blog. This should mean that Oreo users won’t fall foul to installing a malicious app masquerading as something innocuous, just because they ticked a box for a completely different app sometime earlier. Like other permissions, a user can also revoke the Install Unknown Apps permission at any time. This change follows a number of recent Google efforts aimed at tightening up Android security, such as its Play Protect suite, which began rolling out a few weeks ago. As the owner of software that’s in operation on more than 2 billion devices, security is obviously an important issue for Google. In the post on the changes to unknown apps, Cunningham took the opportunity to reaffirm that the Play Store continues to be “one of the safest places” for Android users to install apps. Still, try to be mindful when installing anything on your phone. View: Original Article
  6. A monopoly both in search and advertising, Google, unfortunately, shows that they are not able to resist the misuse of power. I have known Google longer than most. At Opera, we were the first to add their search into the browser interface, enabling it directly from the search box and the address field. At that time, Google was an up-and-coming geeky company. I remember vividly meeting with Google’s co-founder Larry Page, his relaxed dress code and his love for the Danger device, which he played with throughout our meeting. Later, I met with the other co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, and got positive vibes. My first impression of Google was that it was a likeable company. Our cooperation with Google was a good one. Integrating their search into Opera helped us deliver a better service to our users and generated revenue that paid the bills. We helped Google grow, along with others that followed in our footsteps and integrated Google search into their browsers. However, then things changed. Google increased their proximity with the Mozilla foundation. They also introduced new services such as Google Docs. These services were great, gained quick popularity, but also exposed the darker side of Google. Not only were these services made to be incompatible with Opera, but also encouraged users to switch their browsers. I brought this up with Sergey Brin, in vain. For millions of Opera users to be able to access these services, we had to hide our browser’s identity. The browser sniffing situation only worsened after Google started building their own browser, Chrome. Now, we are making the Vivaldi browser. It is based on Chromium, an open-source project, led by Google and built on WebKit and KHTML. Using Google’s services should not call for any issues, but sadly, the reality is different. We still have to hide our identity when visiting services such as Google Docs. And now things have hit a new low. As the biggest online advertising company in the world, Google is often the first choice for businesses that want to promote their products or services on the Internet. Being excluded from using Google AdWords could be a major problem, especially for digital companies. Recently, our Google AdWords campaigns were suspended without warning. This was the second time that I have encountered this situation. This time, however, timing spoke volumes. I had several interviews where I voiced concerns about the data gathering and ad targeting practices – in particular, those of Google and Facebook. They collect and aggregate far too much personal information from their users. I see this as a very serious, democracy-threatening problem, as the vast targeting opportunities offered by Google and Facebook are not only good for very targeted marketing, but also for tailored propaganda. The idea of the Internet turning into a battlefield of propaganda is very far away from the ideal. Two days after my thoughts were published in an article by Wired, we found out that all the campaigns under our Google AdWords account were suspended – without prior warning. Was this just a coincidence? Or was it deliberate, a way of sending us a message? When we reached out to Google to resolve the issue, we got a clarification masqueraded in the form of vague terms and conditions, some of which, they admitted themselves, were not a “hard” requirement. In exchange for being reinstated in Google’s ad network, their in-house specialists dictated how we should arrange content on our own website and how we should communicate information to our users. We made effort to understand their explanations and to work with them on their various unreasonable demands (some of which they don’t follow themselves, by the way). After almost three months of back-and-forth, the suspension to our account has been lifted, but only when we bent to their requirements. A monopoly both in search and advertising, Google, unfortunately, shows that they are not able to resist the misuse of power. I am saddened by this makeover of a geeky, positive company into the bully they are in 2017. I feel blocking competitors on thin reasoning lends credence to claims of their anti-competitive practices. It is also fair to say that Google is now in a position where regulation is needed. I sincerely hope that they’ll get back to the straight and narrow. < Here >
×