all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Don’t use chrome, problem solved.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    somebody did not read the article

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    no, he’s right in some way. claude desktop is spyware, but it only spies through chromium based browsers, so if you don’t use chrome, you’re safe … for now. until they install their backdoor in safari/ firefox based browsers too

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Proprietary software contains spyware. Sky is blue. Water is wet.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Open source software you don’t code review and build yourself can also contain spyware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    while it can, there probably is some arch user who runs the program too and notices it suddenly takes 2ms longer to do something thusly finding the xz attack.

    so, yeah foss isn’t inherently safe, but most probably saf er

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Projects that have lots of attention and assuming you always compile from source. But someone could easily distribute a binary that is different than the source.

    People should do frequent audits, especially network traffic. I had this one file manager that was kinda like Midnight Commander. Someone on a forum said “check out me app” etc. immediately on launch it made network requests…… why? Anyway, definitely don’t use that for long!!

  • source
  • parent
  • 18 comments in c/security@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 13 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    This article is about Claude Desktop, the Electron-based macOS application

    So you are bitching a chrome browser reconfiged your other chrome browser.....

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    It is a bit of a nothingburger, but it's important to note that Electron apps normally bundle their own chromium instance within itself and don't use other browsers. I suspect this is done to potentially support working directly with browsers you have installed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 months ago
    [–] 52 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Once again, brave browser sucks. Use Firefox or a Firefox fork if you want any real security.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    I don't think Firefox is immune to this, just that because its architecture is different, Anthropic didn't bother coding a bridge for it (given its market share).

    The main issue here is that Anthropic violated one of the most important (implicit) tenets of applications in a computer: don't touch other people's shit. Claude.app modified Brave (and others) configuration, adding an extension without user consent. An extension that, by the way, gives full control of the browser to Claude, including reading the DOM for browser tabs unrelated to Claude (for example, the one where you just entered your credit card details).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    I can't believe how many decades we got out of just letting all apps have full access to $HOME. In $current_year it's our own fault if we don't properly isolate our applications I guess. Android does a pretty good job of it IMO although cross-app intents probably need more protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    Technically, at least as far as the author can tell, it only affects Chromium-based browsers. So Firefox would not be affected (yet).

    And only on Mac so far, the app being made with ElectronOS. Not sure what Windows looks like.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    What's Brave got to do with this? The article (that you didn't read) goes into detail about how Anthropic places these files in the directory for any Chromium-based browser.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    While brave itself is only a minor character in this story, it is Chromium based. I was merely pointing it out. You'd be surprised how many push the brave browser on Lemmy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    What is it with Lemmy users posting semi-unrelated comments just to make a point?

    You can't post anything in the Android or GooglePixel communities without 4 "ditch Google, use Graphene" comments.

    It really doesn't make for an engaging community that one wants to partake in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I'm pretty sure I do not represent the com as an individual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    No but you're doing a good job fuelling the stereotype 😃

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Maybe just maybe forums are for discourse? Or maybe you're just as at fault for trying to gatekeep, bringing the "immediately on topic" comment ratio down? Be the change you want to see in world and let it go. It's easy, start by not responding now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago

    Not at all surprised

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago
    5 comments in c/pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub view that post
    [–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    They're listed in the installation pages from what I recall. I unselected them and have no spurious browser extensions installed.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    Claude Desktop may be lacking controls and docs on how they integrate with browsers extension, but the write up seems overly dramatic.

    It's not clear any browser extension actually were installed in the browser on the author's system. Until such extension is installed, the native messenging manifest are inactive, no browser would use them. This standard web technology allow, by design, for specific browser extensions to reach to specific apps outsider the sandbox. A pairing occurs, where the native app allow only specific extensions (cf pre-installed manifest), and the extension request a specific app. Both need to occur to allow the communication.

    Looking at one the extension info on the chrome store, it's obvious what they do. https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/claude/fcoeoabgfenejglbffodgkkbkcdhcgfn

    I would trust neither app nor extension in my system, not without extra sandboxing, as an abundance of caution. But this write-up comes up short of showing spyware behavior.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    It's breaking out of containment /s

  • source