Google Chrome addons... exist? Same/analogs of built-in advantages of Firefox?

Hi people. Because of some strange problem with flash on Firefox I have just installed Google Chrome. I was kinda surprised that Chorme successfully integrated Firefox's bookmarks and passwords. However not so good with addons/extensions.
In Firefox I also liked Search Bar which had different search engines. I found no good extension for chrome. Search Cente doesn' have bar itself. Also I liked that Zoom bar with only 2 buttons +_-.

 

Chrome is nice with searching through the address bar. You don't need extensions. Click on the wrench, then Preferences, then Manage Search Engines. Here you can add anything you want. Default is Chrome. I think if you press b in the address bar, then enter your search terms you can search with Bing. w for wikipedia. y for youtube and so on. You can add as many search engines you want.

No addons needed.

 

If you want a broad infrastructure of add-ons and a highly configurable interface, you have to go with a Mozilla browser - Firefox or Seamonkey, for instance.

There are many Chromium/Chrome extensions, but many aren't exact analogs for similar Mozilla add-ons. I can think of one or two that seem to work well, but have notable quirks and require a couple of extra steps.

 

Firefox's extension model is very flexible - as a result, an extension can do just about anything.

On the other hand, Chrome's extension model is comparatively limited in functionality - as a result, a lot of Firefox extensions don't have analogs on Chrome, or if they do exist are missing some features that its Firefox equivalent has.

Also, whereas Mozilla has a complex vetting process designed to keep out malware, with Chrome, anything goes. There's been at least a few high-profile Chrome extensions that became spyware once they got popular enough. Here's a recent example:

http://www.reddit.com/r/chrome/comments/juijx/til_a_chrome_extension_was_spying_on_me_beware/

 

@Peon,

As you said, Firefox extensions can do just about anything. That's why it's so important that they be vetted. Chrome's extensions have to declare rights and have a limited API to work with - this is a security feature.

That "spyware" is the only example I've ever seen. It was not intended to be malicious - it is hardly something to classify as malware.

There is actually a vetting process but only for extensions that meet a certain criteria ie: use plugins such as Java, which can compromise a users system.

Chrome extensions have come a long way even in the last few days.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/category/home

There are plenty to choose from.

 

For a browser with such a strong focus on security, I'm disappointed that Google doesn't have at least as thorough an extension vetting process as Mozilla (whose own process is far from perfect) does. Google's technology-only approach is like building an impregnible fortress and then leaving the front gate unlocked.

Between that and Firefox's suburban-mansion-with-lots-of-security-guards approach, in the end Firefox is overall more secure when it comes to extensions. Besides, you get all the luxurious amenities of a mansion (in that extensions can do anything) to boot

 

What don't you like about Mozilla's process? It's very thorough. I'd be satisfied with much less.

Elaborate?

When it comes to extensions Firefox is more secure in that each extension goes through a filter.

The extension system itself is not secure and gives way too much freedom to the extensions.

Chrome has "two sandboxes" (so to speak) for the extensions so even in the event of an exploit it then needs to have another further exploit to get out of the sandbox.

So while Firefox protects you from a malicious extension Chrome protects you from an exploitable extension.

There's some overlap since Firefox's vetting process may check for common mistakes/ exploits and Chrome's sandbox prevents malicious extensions from doing too much.

To each their own. I wish Chrome would do more but I don't think there needs to be anything on the level of what Firefox does. Something similar to their Android "Bouncer" is fine.

 

Well, for one, Mozilla's review process is done by volunteers. For Mozilla (mostly nonprofit organization) this is realisticially as good as it gets, but Google (huge multibillion dollar corporation) could hire employees do the reviewing, which would guarantee a certain level of quality.

Note that I said the process is "far from perfect" as in "it's good, but there's always room for improvement, especially by a gigantic company like Google" - I didn't mean that there's anything inherently wrong with the process.

 

Mozilla has a large budget (Google gives them... 300mill? something like taht.)

I'd be satisfied with simple heuristics. nearly 100% of the exploits in extensions could be removed this way. Malicious extensions are more difficult but heuristics is good for that too.

 

Speaking of Reddit and Chrome addons, be sure to use Reddit Enhancement Suite - it works with Chrome as well!