Google has begun rolling out a swathe of new AI features to its ever-popular browser, Google Chrome, but the one that caught my eye was its new "auto browse" feature. Google calls it a "powerful agentic experience that handles multi-step chores on your behalf", taking some of the pain out of everyday browsing tasks.

Essentially, the tech giant is touting it as an extension of its autofill feature, which fills in your address or credit card details into sites asking for the right information. Auto browse, however, can apparently go a lot further.

"Auto browse can help you optimize your vacation planning by doing some of the mundane work, like researching hotel and flight costs across multiple date options, so you can find a budget-friendly time to travel", says Google. Even as an AI sceptic, I have to admit it's a strong start. As someone who books a lot of flights and hotels, I can confirm that comparing deals is an absolute pain in the... neck.

Google says its testers have used auto browse for "scheduling appointments, filling out tedious online forms, collecting their tax documents, getting quotes for plumbers and electricians, checking if their bills are paid, filing expense reports, managing their subscriptions and speeding up renewing their driving licenses". Yep, all tedious stuff. Call me curious.

It goes on, however. "You can use it for more complicated things too", says Google. "Let’s say you’re planning a Y2K theme party and find inspiration in a photo that perfectly captures that era.

"Auto browse, with the multimodal capabilities of Gemini 3, can identify what’s in the picture, search for similar items and add them to your cart—staying within budget and even applying discount codes. And if you give auto browse permission, it can use Google Password Manager to handle tasks even if a sign-in is required."

Aside from the idea I'd ever want to plan a Y2K-themed party (if I ever suggest it, you should apprehend me immediately as it's obviously a nefarious doppelganger), I can't help but feel there's a whole lot to go wrong there. Should someone in the photo be wearing a red sweater, for example, I don't want auto browse to assume that everyone at my next shindig should come dressed as Santa Claus.

Luckily, however, Google says that auto browse will dip out of the process and pause at specific points to allow you to carry out critical tasks yourself, like making an actual purchase, for example, or posting on social media. Thank goodness for that.

I've yet to receive the update myself, but I'll be curious to test it out when I do. Alongside the new feature is a new side panel interface for Google Gemini, which is hopefully a lot less invasive than the current, pop-up window integration, and Nano Banana integration for "transform[ing] images on the fly."

Ah good, an even easier way to create AI images to flood the internet with. I take it back. I am an AI sceptic, and continued AI integration into everyday tools is likely to be a terrible idea. What was I thinking?

Former PC Gamer writers have gone on to do amazing things: Pen Star Wars movies, sell millions of extremely good videogames, and, maybe, save the internet? I exaggerate slightly, but tech writer Corbin Davenport released a tool last week called Just the Browser that offers the faintest glimmer of light in this AI abyss we now call the web.

Per the description on Just the Browser's Github page, the project is a script that, when run, will "remove AI features, telemetry data reporting, sponsored content, product integrations, and other annoyances from web browsers." On Windows, all you have to do is open PowerShell as administrator and copy-paste this command:

& ([scriptblock]::Create((irm "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/corbindavenport/just-the-browser/main/main.ps1")))

The script will then ask you which browser you wish to de-AI, with support for Chrome, Firefox and Edge. Press a couple keys and you're done. It's just as simple to run in the terminal on Mac or Linux.

To set expectations, Just the Browser does not touch anything on the actual websites you visit, which means you're still going to be seeing AI crap all over the place. It is not a silver bullet. What it's doing is using group policy settings—the sorts of under-the-hood levers that IT folks configure that aren't typically visible to the everyday user—to disable features that don't have an easy off switch. It's not a hack or a browser extension, and you could do the same thing manually if you wanted to—Corbin just bundled up a bunch of nice little changes into one simple script.

If you're a Chrome user, here's all the stuff Just the Browser is disabling, which you can see for yourself if you type chrome://policy/ into your address bar.

The open source project has gotten a blitz of attention this week, popping up on Hacker News and a range of tech sites. This has of course invited a number of correct-but-nonetheless-obnoxious commenters pointing out that running a random PowerShell script you find on the internet is very bad opsec, and who says we should trust this random guy anyway? I am! I'm saying it!

Corbin has a long history of making cool, free open source projects, and Just the Browser also has a documented manual process if you want to see exactly what the script is changing (which is just the stuff in the table above).

Great work, Corbin. Now we just have to figure out how to block the rest of the slop.

With one of the world's top bankers, ex-Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, and even OpenAI chief Sam Altman suggesting AI is in a bubble, Google's CEO has chimed in with thoughts of his own. When asked how the AI bubble bursting would affect Google Pichai tells the BBC the company would survive, but also that "no company is going to be immune, including us."

In an interview with the British news organisation Google's Sundar Pichai talks at length about this technology as we enter "clearly the era of AI." Pichai has been the CEO of Google for over a decade now, and as such, he is one of the most influential voices in favour of the rise of generative AI tools.

Google, alongside all its competitors, is committing a lot of time, money, and effort into the growth of AI. Pichai says, "AI is dramatically increasing demand for energy", adding that "maybe four years ago, Google was spending less than 30 billion dollars per year. This year, that number is going to be over 90 billion dollars."

With exponential growth comes the potential of that growth stopping suddenly, and the industries built around it collapsing in response. Nvidia has become a company worth over $5 trillion, and that's partially due to the rise of AI and the costs of capable hardware.

This knock-on effect has pumped up the worth of major AI companies, such as OpenAI, and would explain the AI commitments made by Google, Microsoft, Meta, and more.

"No one company should own a technology as powerful as AI," says Pichai. "We can look back at the internet right now. There was clearly a lot of excess investment, but none of us would question whether the internet was profound or did it drive a lot of impacts. It fundamentally changed how we work digitally, as a society. I expect AI to be the same."

But even successful industry bubbles can pop. For instance, the infamous dot-com bubble of the late '90s could be attributed to a broad trend of overvaluations of many internet companies and market saturation (among other things), but that doesn't mean that the invention of the internet isn't influential on the world around us today.

Pichai also talks about the role of generative AI tools in the wider world going forward. 'Agentic' is the current buzzword around AI, and the notion of one AI that can autonomously complete assignments with little oversight is certainly intriguing. "Down the line, that means there are moments it can help you make a decision… ' should I invest in this stock?'... or 'my doctor is recommending a treatment. How should I think about the pros and cons of that treatment?"

But Pichai doesn't envision AI as a one-stop solution for all queries. He urges people not to "blindly trust" AI as it is currently prone to errors. AI is known to have hallucinations, where it effectively makes things up. If you ask a chatbot a question it doesn't have an answer for, or it has scraped its answer from inaccurate sources, it can feed you misinformation unintentionally. As we trust these tools more, the effects of that misinformation can become more pronounced.

"This is why people also use Google search, and we have other products that are more grounded in providing accurate information."

When asked, "Could an AI agent do your job at some point?", Pichai says, "I think what a CEO does is maybe one of the easier things for an AI to do one day." So, at least if AI does take all our jobs, we'll all be job hunting together. Or not, I suppose, if Pichai's estimated net worth is accurate.

The best PC gaming gear 2025

All our current recommendations

Pick a category Best overallCore ComponentsChairs & DesksSystems & LaptopsScreensPeripheralsCases, Cooling & Storage

Choose a list The best PC gaming gear 2025

---

BEST GAMING CHAIR

1. Secretlab Titan Evo

Check Price

BEST GAMING DESK

2. Secretlab Magnus Pro XL

Check Price

BEST GAMING HEADSET

3. HyperX Cloud Alpha

Check Price

BEST GAMING KEYBOARD

4. Asus ROG Strix Scope II 96 Wireless

Check Price

BEST GAMING MOUSE

5. Razer DeathAdder V3 HyperSpeed

Check Price

BEST PC CONTROLLER

6. Xbox Wireless Controller

Check Price

BEST STEERING WHEEL

7. Logitech G Pro Racing Wheel

Check Price

BEST MICROPHONE

8. Shure MV6

Check Price

BEST WEBCAM

9. Elgato Facecam MK.2

Check Price

---

Read the full guide: The best PC gaming gear 2025

POWERED BY

Just this week, it was announced that, despite being declared a monopolist last year, Google would not be forced to sell Chrome, and the reaction has certainly not been all positive. Politicians, CEOs, and even Tim Sweeney are not happy about what is being perceived as just "a slap on the wrist" for its illegalities.

As noted by the Guardian, Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Market Institute thinktank, says, “Judge Mehta’s order that Google share search data with competitors and cease entering into exclusive contracts does nothing to right those wrongs. Instead, it lets Google and every other monopolist know that even the most egregious violation of law will be met with a slap on the wrist.”

Nidhi Hedge, the executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argues, "You don’t find someone guilty of robbing a bank and then sentence him to writing a thank you note for the loot… Similarly, you don’t find Google liable for monopolisation and then write a remedy that lets it protect its monopoly. This feckless remedy to the most storied case of monopolisation of the past quarter century is a complete failure of his duty and must be appealed."

Judge Mehta has overseen this case since it started in 2020, but things have changed rather dramatically since. In his latest ruling (PDF), Mehta argued that the emergence of generative AI has "changed the course of this case." The stated goal with remedies is to stop Google from having the same level of dominance it has within the budding field of generative AI that it has with search engines.

Though Google will not be forced to sell Chrome, it will have to share some index and user interaction data with "qualified competitors", and must also share search and text ads syndication services. It also must not enter into any exclusive contracts in relation to the distribution of its search tools, assistant, or Chrome.

Mehta states that Google's "best-in-class search quality, consistent innovations, investment in human capital, strategic foresight, and brand recognition" are what helped attain and hold that monopoly. The court document argues Google's spot at the top of the digital pecking order is not "sufficiently attributable to its illegal conduct to justify divestiture."

Senator Elizabeth Warren claims, "The judge’s remedies fail to hold Google accountable for breaking the law," and Epic Games' CEO Tim Sweeney says Google "can continue doing all of the stuff the court found unlawful, but with some minor new data sharing obligations limiting search default payoffs to 1-year terms."

Just this week, the US DOJ declared it won "significant remedies against Google". This was soon followed by Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division, stating, "We're not done." The DOJ pushed for Google to divest Chrome as recently as March this year, and Chrome seems to have been in the DOJ's sights for some time.

In a different case this week (via Reuters), Google was ordered to pay $425 million in a class action lawsuit for invading users' privacy and collecting data. Google had announced it would be attempting to appeal this decision, with Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda stating, "Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalisation, we honour that choice.”

The Chrome case is set to reach its conclusion on September 10, with both parties agreeing to finalised remedies based on the court's order. If the DOJ's response isn't just bluster, it may not actually end here.

Just earlier this year, the US DOJ came in hot arguing "Google must divest the Chrome browser", and accusing it of dominance "through its unlawful and unchecked, monopolistic conduct over the past decade." For a while, it felt like something might happen to break it apart, and now it appears this was all bluster.

As spotted by The Guardian, a judgment was filed on Tuesday, ruling on the ongoing case of the United States of America v. Google LLC (PDF). It is effectively a final opinion from Judge Amit Mehta, who previously argued "Google is a monopolist" in August of last year and also argued it has "no true competitor".

Effectively, both groups will present a final judgment to the court by September 10, 2025, ironing out any differences and adhering to the arguments made. Things aren't expected to majorly change, and this will be based on the finer details.

The major determinations from the judge are as follows:

• Google will not be allowed to enter exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of its search tools, assistant, or Chrome
• It will not be required to divest Chrome, as previously argued, as "this court cannot find that Google’s market dominance is sufficiently attributable to its illegal conduct to justify divestiture"
• Google will not be stopped from giving incentives (paid or otherwise) in return for the preloading or placement of Google products
• Google has to share certain index and user-interaction data with 'qualified competitors, ' though it doesn't have to share ad data.
• Google has to offer search and search text ads syndication services to 'qualified competitors', to allow them to "deliver high-quality search"
• Google does not have to give users a choice screen on any of its products and doesn't need to encourage Android partners to do the same
• Google does not have to share query-level data with advertisers. It must, however, disclose any "material changes" made to ad auctions

Plaintiffs previously argued for Google to run a nationwide public education campaign for it to modify policies to give publishers more choice over how their information is used, and for it to be subject to "investment reporting" requirements. None of these will be enforced.

Generative AI takes up a rather large portion of the court judgment. When asked, "Are there any products at Google of significance that generative AI has not been integrated into?", Google's representative simply replied "no". This case has been ongoing since October 2020, and "Much has changed since the end of the liability trial, though some things have not. Google is still the dominant firm in the relevant product markets."

The judgment argues "artificial intelligence technologies, particularly generative AI (“GenAI”), may yet prove to be game changers", and it cites the "tens of millions of people" who use AI chatbots like ChatGPT. Though the case argues they aren't replacing GREs (general search engines), it surmises that developers will add features to generative AI platforms to make them function more like traditional search engines as they get better. The case argues that generative AI has "changed the course of this case."

Google "urges the court to do nothing more because the GenAI technology space is highly competitive, and any further restrictions would unfairly hobble it in that fight." In line with this, many of the plaintiff's proposed acts are made to stop Google from carrying over its dominance into the future of AI.

The judgment states, "Unlike the typical case where the court’s job is to resolve a dispute based on historic facts, here the court is asked to gaze into a crystal ball and look to the future. Not exactly a judge’s forte".

In the four years this case has been active, it appears to have warped from a retaliatory attempt to shut down Google's monopoly to guesswork about what generative AI will do to the way we engage with search. The judgment states there's "ample evidence that lawful conduct played an important role in Google’s maintenance of its monopoly" and that its dominance is partly down to "best-in-class search quality, consistent innovations, investment in human capital, strategic foresight, and brand recognition"

All-in-all, this seems like a bit of a win for Google, given how dire things looked by the end of last year. In December, I argued "the devil is in the details" with this specific case, and the devil (as has become common recently) appears to be AI. Well, that and a pretty solid search engine.

Here's a useful piece of advice right up top—don't use a free VPN. Many will have serious caveats, as demonstrated by the security researchers at Koi, who say they've discovered a particularly popular Chrome-based variant taking unauthorised screenshots and spying on its users.

The accused Chrome extension is called FreeVPN.One, and it's currently sat at 100,000+ downloads on the Chrome Web Store—complete with a coveted "featured" badge that supposedly marks its compliance with recommended practices (via Sweclockers).

After discovering the extension and taking a closer look at the code, Koi's researchers discovered that FreeVPN.One was silently capturing screenshots exactly 1.1 seconds after any page was loaded, before sending them back to its home server with the page URL, tab ID, and a unique user identifier.

The VPN extension features a "Scan with AI Threat Detection" tool, which, its privacy policy states, may upload screenshots of specific pages and URLs to its secure servers. However, according to the team at Koi, FreeVPN.One was found to be busy taking screenshots of every page well before the tool was deployed, with its users being none the wiser.

It gets worse, too. Koi claims that not only has the VPN been categorising and phoning home geolocation and device data alongside the screenshots in recent months, but the latest version also introduces AES-256-GCM encryption with RSA key wrapping (I only know what some of those words mean), which means the exfiltration of its findings back to its home server is now far harder to detect.

The team at Koi believes the spying behaviour started in April of this year, when a permission update enabled the extension to access every site a user visited. A quick succession of updates over the next few months appears to have further enhanced its permissions access, which Koi characterises as the developer experimenting to see how far they could push the extension without raising suspicion.

The silent screenshot behaviour, along with location tracking and data exfiltration, is said to have begun on July 17. In the next update, the aforementioned encryption was added, along with a switch to a new subdomain.

Koi reached out to the extension's sole developer for comment, who initially responded, denying its findings. The dev claimed that the automatic screenshot capture was part of a background scanning feature and would only trigger if a domain appeared suspicious—but the researchers say they have observed screenshots being captured on a wealth of trusted sites, including Google Sheets and Google Photos.

When asked to provide evidence of legitimacy in the form of a company profile, GitHub account, or LinkedIn page, the team claims the developer stopped responding to their emails, leaving behind one known address that corresponds with a free-tier Wix template page.

Call me an amateur sleuth if you like, but that doesn't seem like the most trustworthy behaviour to me. At the time of writing, FreeVPN.One is still available on the Google Web Store—with a 3.7 star review page now full of angry comments from users referencing Koi's investigation.

Even if the screenshot-snapping behaviour was a legitimate mistake, it seems like the free tool's time in the sun may be over, although the fact that it's still available with the same "featured" badge is troubling. Here's hoping it's soon scoured from the store, with an important lesson learned. Pay for a trustworthy VPN, folks. The free ones usually aren't worth the risk.

When was the last time you updated your web browser? Are your palms sweaty? Knees weak, arms heavy, mom's spaghetti? Well, as the saying goes the best time to plant a tree/update your web browser/begin your illustrious rap career was probably long before today but the next best time is right now—and it's just as well as the National Vulnerability Database has just catalogued a zero-day flaw in Chrome.

CVE-2025-6554 is essentially a type confusion error in the V8 Javascript engine. This flaw has been spotted in the wild, and as the NVD entry explains, has been leveraged to allow "a remote attacker to perform arbitrary read/write via a crafted HTML page." Basically, if you're using a version of Chrome older than 138.0.7204.96, simply visiting a dodgy website could allow a hacker to execute code on your device.

This vulnerability was flagged to Google by Clément Lecigne of the company's internal Threat Analysis Group on June 25, leading to a speedy stable channel update less than a week later. If you're on either version 138.0.7204.96/.97 for Windows, 138.0.7204.92/.93 for Mac or 138.0.7204.92 for Linux, the vulnerability should no longer be as pressing an issue.

I say 'as pressing' because this Javascript error has been the root of a number of zero-day vulnerabilities in the past as well. For instance, of the ten zero-day vulnerabilities Bleeping Computer counted in 2024 alone, a V8 type confusion error played a role in about half of them. It's very much a known issue.

Chrome usually updates automatically whenever it detects a new version is available. However, it also can't hurt to peek behind the three dots, check under 'Help,' and then look in 'About Google Chrome' just to ensure you're all up to date. That said, it's not just Google Chrome that could be affected by this security flaw.

Chromium-based browsers, such as Microsoft Edge, DuckDuckGo, and Opera, may also share this vulnerability. DeGoogling like PewDiePie is all well and good, but it's a company with its AI-generated, too-many-fingers in many different pies. So, I'm going to ask you once more—when was the last time you updated your web browser?

Google has had a weird couple of years. In the US, it is being pushed to divest the Chrome browser and to break up its ad-tech platform. In the UK, things aren't going that much better, as the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is looking to introduce "targeted measures to address specific aspects of how Google operates".

As spotted by the BBC, the CMA recently published its findings, following its initial investigation into Google this January. Noting that "Google search accounts for more than 90% of all general search queries in the UK", the report pays particular attention to the 200,000 businesses in the UK reliant on said search.

The CMA claims its report is interested in promoting growth and competition whilst also "protecting UK consumers and businesses from unfair or harmful practices". It is an attempt to designate Google with Strategic Market Status (SMS)

An SMS, as described by Will Hayter, the Executive Director for Digital Markets, is a "possible designation that can be attached to a particular company when it has substantial and entrenched power and a position of strategic significance in respect of a digital activity in the UK." As a result, the UK government can step in to make changes to how it operates to facilitate competition among partners.

The central arguments made by the CMA are a push to require "choice screens to help people easily select and switch between search services", alongside transparency around the ranking of search results. It also argues for companies to have recourse if they believe they are being unfairly ranked in Google search.

As well as these measures, the proposal argues that digital publishers should have greater transparency over how tools like Google's AI services (AI assistant and AI overview) pull their data, how it's attributed, and more. Fundamentally, these changes, if implemented, will significantly impact how Google functions in the UK.

Sarah Cardell, the Chief Executive of the CMA, says, "These targeted and proportionate actions would give UK businesses and consumers more choice and control over how they interact with Google’s search services".

The CMA has published its current findings whilst encouraging "views on its proposed designation decision and accompanying roadmap". It will make a final decision on SMS designation by its deadline on October 13.

It also claims, through its investigation, that "Google may not consistently provide fair search ranking and is able to rapidly (and with limited transparency over when or why) introduce changes to ranking." It asserts that Google's deals for default browser status with companies like Apple and Samsung have given it an advantage that makes it hard for competitors to keep up. Will Hayter has argued, in digital markets, "it's absolutely vital that they [companies] operate in as competitive and as open a way as possible"

Speaking to The Register, a spokesperson for Google said "the positive impact of Google Search on the UK is undeniable" and that "this announcement presents clear challenges to critical areas of our business in the UK". The spokesperson continues, "We're concerned that the scope of the CMA's considerations remains broad and unfocused, with a range of interventions being considered before any evidence has been provided".

It is worth noting that SMS designation does not imply wrongdoing, and Cardell said in their investigation, "Google search has delivered tremendous benefits".

This is not the first time CMA has crossed the PC Gamer news desk. Back in 2022, the CMA investigated both Google and Apple for alleged cloud gaming dominance (RIP Google Stadia). As well as this, the CMA initially blocked Microsoft $68.7B deal with Activision Blizzard in 2023. The CMA previously objected to Google's ad tech late last year, too. Google has been in the CMA's sights for some time, and we'll have to wait until October to see how this specific proposal shapes out.

After accusing Google of running a 'decade-long campaign of exclusionary conduct', arguments have finally been made about how exactly Google can right the monopoly it allegedly holds. If the DOJ gets its way, that would result in Google breaking up major ad platforms AdX and DFP.

Google has been in a bit of hot water for, well, a long time, thanks to its near-total domination of the online search market. Owning the means to search, plus the advertising platform around it, has led to two separate but equally big cases in the last few years.

The case about Google's advertising ruled that Google was running an illegal monopoly just last month, and recent litigation has gone forward on how to remedy it.

As reported by Reuters, there are eight central remedies proposed by the plaintiff here, with the two most important being the divestiture of Google's ownership of AdX and DFP. AdX is Google's ad marketplace, which facilitates the sale of advertising space to potential advertisers through bidding.

The court argues that Google incentivised the use of its platform over competitors as "publishers would lose significant revenue if they did not use AdX". The court argues Google should divest AdX through its sale, and the plaintiff is seeking the "right to approve or disapprove the divestiture buyer."

The divesting of DFP, Google's ad-serving platform, is the second remedy suggested by the DOJ. The divestiture of DFP is planned to roll out in stages, with the first forcing Google to provide API access and "server-to-server connection for DFP to integrate with and receive bids from the open-source Prebid header-bidding wrapper".

The second stage pushes Google to change to DFP to allow final auctions of ads within the publisher's ad server. The code for this logic would then be made open source to organisations.

Effectively, this is all intended to demystify DFP, before it is then sold in the third phase.

In the court document, the DOJ argues, "The broad sweep of these remedies is necessitated by the magnitude of Google’s violations—its 'decade-long campaign of exclusionary conduct.'” Google claims it is in favour of some outlined remedies, but argues forcing it to sell its ad tools is an overreach.

Lee-Ann Mulholland, Google's vice president of regulatory affairs, told Reuters, "The DOJ's additional proposals to force a divestiture of our ad tech tools go well beyond the Court's findings, have no basis in law, and would harm publishers and advertisers."

The DOJ also argues that Google should be prohibited from "distorting the competitive process" after the case is fully concluded. The remedies also argue that Google should be transparent with its data to allow competitors to catch up on the advantage Google has gained through its ad practices.

As well as mandating that Google pay for attorney fees and other costs, the outlined remedies argue for ways to monitor Google going forward.

As these are proposed remedies, and Google seems to have declared problems it sees with the court ruling, both parties will now reconvene in a September trial to figure out the logistics of how to right Google's perceived wrongs.

Ad platforms are a huge part of the way that companies like Google operate, so the divestiture of AdX and FDP will have rather large changes on the incentives in online digital spaces. Losing control of ad tools may change the way Google chooses to serve or work with ad companies, and it's likely to affect the profit it can make from its advertising spaces.

Like the potential of Google having to sell off Chrome, there's a complexity to not only the selling process but what the landscape looks like after, and we are due to hear much more about it in just a few months.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that if you downloaded a Google Chrome extension from the official Chrome Web Store, it was likely to be above board. Not so, according to the founder of browser extension security platform Secure Annex, who claims he's identified 35 Chrome extensions with 4 million total installs that he concludes 'include some kind of spyware or infostealer.'

The accused extensions have several things in common. They use many of the same code patterns, connect to many of the same servers, and require the same system permissions (via Ars Technica). However, John Tuckner, founder of cybersecurity firm Secure Annex, also found they use obfuscated code that looks designed to conceal their behaviour.

"These extensions have some strong relations and most claim to actually perform some purpose like ad blocking, extension protection, better search results, or privacy protection which likely keeps them available in the web store", says Tuckner.

"While all are different, the code for their claimed purpose is often very minimal or missing entirely."

In the case of one particular example, Fire Shield Extension Protection, running it on a lab device resulted in a blank webpage, while clicking the options menu appeared to do nothing. Chrome developer tools revealed that the extension connected to a URL and performed a generic "browser_action_clicked" response, but nothing further.

Using a unique extension ID found on GitHub, Tuckner was able to observe Fire Shield sending a variety of events to a web server, tracking what websites he was visiting, which he had visited previously, and the size of his display.

"While I could not find an instance of the [Fire Shield] extension exfiltrating credentials, this level of obfuscation alone, the ability for the extension’s configuration to be remotely controlled, and the capabilities in the browser extension’s code is enough for me to come to the same conclusion that all of these extensions include some kind of spyware or infostealer" says Tuckner.

Tuckner says that he identified 35 extensions using "eerily similar names" and with distinct similarities. 34 of them reference a mysterious "unknow.com" in their background service listings.

All but one of the identified extensions are unlisted, meaning that you'd have to click on a link directly to go to its Chrome store page. Nevertheless, 10 of the accused extensions are given the "Featured" badge by Google. As Tuckner opines:

"Why are some of these extensions selected to be 'Featured' by Google when they are not discoverable by normal users?

"This blows my mind. Any normal user might interpret that status as the extension being verified and reputable. It should absolutely not be possible to be 'Featured' and not discoverable at the same time."

Indeed. You can find the full list of extensions identified by Tucker as potentially malicious at the bottom of the Ars Technica article. Many of them have names like Incognito Shield, Privacy Guard, and Total Safety, so if you're using a Chrome extension to protect your online presence, it's worth taking a look to see if you have some serious cleaning up to do.

Last year, the US Department of Justice proposed a number of remedies to address Google's vice-like hold over search. Among the DOJ's suggestions was that Google be forced to sell off Chrome and be banned from re-entering the browser market for five years. Unsurprisingly, Google didn't much care for this plan, and they're now trying their luck with the Trump administration.

Representatives from Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc., met with government officials last week. They urged Trump's DOJ to pursue less disruptive measures citing concerns of national security, according to anonymous sources who spoke to Bloomberg. Specific proposed remedies were allegedly not addressed, with the company's representatives instead making the case for a less hack-happy approach given Google's pivotal role within the US economy.

In a statement, Google spokesperson Peter Schottenfels asserted that this was all very normal, saying, "We routinely meet with regulators, including with the DOJ to discuss this case. As we’ve publicly said, we’re concerned the current proposals would harm the American economy and national security.”

During the Biden administration, the DOJ had previously claimed Google had "corrupted legitimate competition in the ad tech industry by engaging in a systematic campaign to seize control." A seismic ruling soon followed in August, with a federal judge finding that the company had illegally monopolized search and related advertising.

Google's vice president, Lee-Anne Mulholland, didn't like the ruling one bit, saying, "The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed."

When news of the DOJ's proposed, far-reaching remedies then surfaced in November, Google and Alphabet's president of Global Affairs and chief legal officer Kent Walker wrote in a public blog post, "[The] DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership.

"DOJ’s wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court’s decision. It would break a range of Google products—even beyond Search—that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives."

For a deeper dive into the legal ins and outs of this case, take a look at our James' feature from last year. As it currently stands, a judge still has yet to rule on exactly which remedies proposed by the DOJ will go into effect, hence Google's continued push to hold on to its hoard.

Both Google and the DOJ are to file their final proposals to the judge on Friday, before hearings begin next month. Still, given this recent White House statement taking aim at the European Union's taxation of US tech giants (framing this as the 'unfair exploitation of American innovation'), perhaps Google is feeling lucky…

Chegg, an American educational company, has accused Google of disincentivising original content "in favor of low-quality, unverified AI summaries"—a recent technology that scrapes information from websites and gives it to the user without having to click into a page.

In a lawsuit filed on Monday (via Reuters) Chegg argues Google's AI overview will lead to a "hollowed-out information ecosystem of little use and unworthy of trust". This announcement coincides with Chegg's declaration of its full-year financial results for 2024, which it put out to the public via a press release.

In that press release, Chegg CEO Nathan Schultz starts with two central announcements on behalf of the company. The first is that Chegg is currently exploring a "range of alternatives to maximize shareholder value, including being acquired, undertaking a go-private transaction, or remaining as a public standalone company". The second is the filing of its complaint against Google and its parent company Alphabet Inc.

Schultz argues these two decisions are directly linked as he alleges Google "has unjustly retained traffic that has historically come to Chegg, impacting our acquisitions, revenue and employees".

Google officially unveiled its AI overview search system in April last year, and it has already rolled out to over 100 countries since. If you use Google and haven't chosen to actively turn AI summaries off, there's a good chance you have used it today. Google itself has invested significantly into AI over the last few years and even launched Google Gemini, a competitor to OpenAI's ChatGPT, back in 2023.

Google's AI overview links out to sources it takes information from, but the case argues:

"Traffic is being blocked from ever coming to Chegg because of Google’s AIO and their use of Chegg’s content to keep visitors on their own platform".

As some users may not be given a reason to click on the page that Google's AI summary is reliant on, this case argues that AI summaries are effectively taking Chegg's traffic as its own. Schultz argues it's about much more than Chegg and that it's "about the digital publishing industry, the future of internet search, and about students losing access to quality, step-by-step learning in favor of low-quality, unverified AI summaries".

In response to this complaint, Reuters reports Jose Castenada, a Google spokesperson, is critical of the suit's argumentation: "With AI Overviews, people find Search more helpful and use it more, creating new opportunities for content to be discovered. Every day, Google sends billions of clicks to sites across the web, and AI Overviews send traffic to a greater diversity of sites."

This is one of many antitrust lawsuits brought against Google over the last few years, with U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, who previously argued Google runs an illegal monopoly with Chrome last year, overseeing Chegg's case. Google has reportedly attempted to appeal the decision and is looking to have the case dismissed entirely.

Opera GX, Opera's gaming browser, has been on my radar for some time. It has edgy marketing, a very meme-heavy X account, and catches my eye every few months for some strange new addition made to its browser. Opera GX is the browser that implemented an anti-Valentine's Day mod and can fake your search history.

It has been catching headlines for a while for being not like the other browsers. And though I make fun of it, some of that reputation seems fair. A built-in VPN and a handy sourcing of gaming information in the browser's main hub make it stand out. A mixture of morbid curiosity and actual curiosity got the best of me and I've been using it regularly for a few months now.

I found Opera GX to be a surprisingly good experience, but one that ultimately just wasn't right for me. There are plenty of rather useful features but also so much customisation, and extra (sometimes pointless feeling) features that get lost in the noise. I often find myself asking 'Why does my browser need this?' and the answer is 'It doesn't, but it's kinda funny'. A browser is effectively a middleman between you and the information you are looking for, so adding a custom UI, sounds, and more feels needless. It's all doing just a little too much.

Opera GX feels like the stereotype of a gaming laptop. Its angular UI reminds me of the aesthetic of the recent MSI Titan 18 HX A14V, a gaming laptop as over the top as its name. I think a lot of my initial scepticism about Opera GX comes from the fact that it's a browser. If I was told a new gaming console was trying innovative things or is packed full of features like Opera GX, I can understand that, but browsers seem to work their best when they just get out of your way.

Chrome is simple, and even then, I'm tempted to move back to Edge to avoid the extra few clicks of getting Google's browser up and running on a new rig. Even Edge has its rough edges, though (sorry, I couldn't help it).

However, as a grander space you open up when you turn on your PC, Opera GX starts to make a bit more sense to me. GX Corner, the home tab of the browser, has a built-in release calendar for upcoming video games and even tells you about big sales on different platforms.

Right now, as I turn it on, I'm informed Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 are both 90% off. However, if you don't fancy being bombarded with what are effectively ads, you can turn this all off in settings. Alongside these tabs in the GX Corner are game trailers, daily gaming news, and other tidbits. This is a genuinely good part of the browser, and easy to navigate. It is pretty central to the Opera GX experience, as proven by the fact it can't be closed without actually turning it all off in settings.

GX.Daily, a mixture of news, deals, and events in GX Corner is oddly personalised and occasionally inflammatory. At the top of my feed sat a post from the PCMR Reddit making a joke about RTX 5090 burning inside of rigs, and underneath that, GX.Daily said that Sony's February State of Play disappointed fans. I somewhat agree with the last one but the browser's attempt to effectively be a buddy is something that can be spotted through the community, the X account, and even the browser itself. This all leads to a 'like it or hate it' style browser, and that's only further enunciated with the UI.

The UI is initially a smattering of blacks and reds, with the browser itself coming in dark mode from the start. You can change the theme from settings, or download 'mods' which can customize the looks, and even sounds of the browser. Interestingly, the browser from startup without changing any settings has sounds when you close and open tabs. These can be turned off or even changed to fit a Cyberpunk 2077 or Zenless Zone Zero theme, which is a level of customisation that certainly helps Opera GX stand out among its contemporaries.

There's in-browser music, which thankfully automatically turns off when you're playing games or watching videos, but browser closing and opening sounds aren't quite as dynamic.

After a few weeks with it, it all got a bit much. I stopped paying attention to the customisation features and ended up turning off all the sounds as they ended up distracting me.

You can use community-created mods, which means you can add joke mods to your browser like a mod of a spinning fish or a monkey driving around Los Santos from Grand Theft Auto. There's an irreverence Opera GX pays towards the traditional browser market that makes the browser feel unique.

If you're looking for a quick distraction from doom scrolling, one of the most interesting features of Opera GX is a built-in game store. You can play and even buy games all to play in the browser. The first free game I saw, DPS Idle, was a simple but effective idle clicker game that I could easily slot away in a tab when I wanted a break. The idea of budding developers testing out their games to a wider market through the likes of Opera GX, before deciding if they want to go through the process of getting it on Steam is enticing to me and Opera does a good job at putting those games in front of eyes with easy-to-search tags.

In a sense, this focus on customisation, specifically with a community angle, reminds me of those early days of 2000s mobile phones—the joy of downloading super low-resolution wallpapers to display on your screen or a beer-drinking app just to show your friend, before uninstalling.

There's something quite fun about the exploration of Opera GX that serves well as a party piece but quickly lost that shine for me. The games are still interesting but I stopped paying attention to the mods, and a lot of the GX.Daily news. Most of the extra functions, apart from the built-in VPN, fell by the wayside.

Having spent a few months now with Opera GX, I feel very torn on it. I like a lot of what it does and enjoy how community-focused it is, even if I think the marketing can be a bit too much. I like the idea of lots of customisation in practice, but it mostly became a distraction. Opera GX almost functions like its own OS or social space. It feels like an introduction into a community but I don't need all of that to look up cute pictures of animals or google the amount of CUDA cores in an RTX 5090 (it's 21,760 if you're interested).

Opera GX will likely hover on my rig for when I need quick access to a VPN but I don't know if it's really done enough for my day-to-day browsing experience for me to redownload on future devices. All those extra little features become cumbersome when all I want to do is google a burning question or watch YouTube. I know a few people who stand by Opera GX, but with the way I use it now, it mostly feels like Chrome but edgy.

The release calendar is pretty handy though.

I may not have mentioned this yet (I'm pretty sure I mentioned it in one of my first PC Gamer articles) but I have a law degree. That has made me love the minutia of the legal system but also keenly aware of how complicated and drawn out it can all get. Though the United States' enforcement of anti-trust principles as of late is likely better for the consumer and broader market, the latest hearing isn't the end of the case.

United States v. Google LLC (1:20-cv-03010) began proceedings in October 2020 and was decided in August of this year. This is a different case from the confusingly titled United States v. Google LLC (1:23-cv-00108), which started in 2023, and had its closing arguments in November 2024.

The latter case is specifically about Google's control and alleged monopoly over its advertising, whereas the former is about its search engine. Through deals with companies like Apple to be the default search engine on the iPhone and Google's ownership of the popular mobile OS Android, Google has become the search engine giant it is today.

There's a reason why it's a popular joke to jokingly insult the 'five users of Bing' or how behind the market Microsoft's Edge is. That browser is known as the app you use to get Chrome, then never touch it again. In fact, Windows periodically sends reminders that 'you can just use Edge, you know?' and yet many don't. I write this typing on Google Docs, through Google Chrome, so maybe I'm part of the problem.

Fundamentally, most browsers aren't too dissimilar from each other—yet Chrome holds almost 70% of the market share on a consistent basis. This lawsuit took aim at the browser, and after years of deliberation, the DOJ has proposed that Google be forced to sell Chrome, alongside a few other efforts to stop Google from further monopolising the market.

Judge Amit Mehta, who presides over the case, has ruled that Google acted illegally to develop and maintain its monopoly. As well as advising that Google sell Chrome, the DOJ proposed it be barred from reentering agreements like those that made it the default web browser, whilst also recommending it share its data with rivals.

It's also been recommended that Google either sell off Android or avoid making Google the default option on Android devices. The DOJ makes these recommendations to Judge Mehta, where Judge Mehta can mediate and come to an agreement.

This all seems like great advice to stop a company that has acted in a way that the court deems to be monopolistic. Controlling such a huge part of the market not only discourages others from entering but can push those in the market out. Once a company has a big enough control over a resource, like all the digital real estate Chrome has, it can essentially make its own rules.

Outside of court orders like this, there aren't ways to hold huge corporate entities accountable when they are acting against the interests of their users. If Chrome, Edge, Opera, and more were equally viable choices, you could afford to swap from one to the other if you didn't like any decisions made.

Of course, selling Chrome won't shrink its user base overnight. Though the other actions recommended by the DOJ would help with that too, it's important to note that the litigation against Google is more than just a singular case, it's one of multiple antitrust suits levelled against the company in the last few years.

The worry isn't specifically and exclusively about Chrome, but all the actions made to keep it where it is today. Google as a company doesn't appear to be trusted to handle something like Chrome in legal ways.

Published on November 21, just a single day after the DOJ proposed Google sell Chrome, Kent Walker, the global affairs and chief legal officers of Google and Alphabet (Google's parent company), took to the Google Blog to declare that this decision "would hurt consumers".This piece makes the argument that the proposal would endanger the security of users by undermining the quality of the services and disclosing Google's research to "foreign and domestic companies".

It also argued that Google's investment into AI would be chilled by this decision, effectively warning that Google's own advancement of AI would be held back as a result.

The blog also argues that it would not only hurt casual consumers' access to Google search but would hurt companies reliant on Google, like Firefox. Finally, it argues this is a slippery slope and an overreach of the government on "your online experience".

None of these arguments, on their face, are necessarily wrong—but I'd argue they're lacking a little in nuance. Selling off such a huge entity could indeed leave consumers open to bad practices, both technically and ethically, from the potential buyer. It is also true that Google's research into the likes of Google Gemini would make less sense without owning the broader ecosystem. Also, with so many browsers being based on Chromium, Google's open-source web browsing project, there's a chance for security or quality problems as a result.

However, that's also part of what the current process in the lawsuit is for. Judge Mehta has argued Google acted illegally and Google does have the chance to appeal, which it has been suggested it will do. If it fails to file as such, a further trial will be held in April next year to come up with an answer to remedy the alleged wrongdoing.

In this case, Google's arguments will be heard and an answer will be found. Many of the arguments brought forward by Google could be remedied through further litigation and aren't themselves arguments against the suit. It's important to remember that the DOJ's recommendation isn't law, it's merely a suggestion based on the facts of the case, and other remedies can be found.

Though we have many arguments and a decision, this case is anything but final and it's hard to have too concrete an understanding until a later date. Though the breaking up of parts of Google seems to have been necessary for some time as argued by Judge Mehta, the specifics of how that will happen will dictate how successful the potential selling would be.

Chrome is a major part of much of how Google currently operates and measures will need to be taken to not lose many fundamental parts of the internet seemingly overnight. A heavy-handed approach was needed for much of the court case to even bring this suit against Google but a finer touch is needed for those specifics. Though we won't understand how fine that is for some time.

Earlier this week it was reported that the US Department of Justice's top antitrust officials would likely ask a judge to enforce a significant break up of Google, in part proposing that Chrome be sold off.

As of Wednesday night, the official paperwork has since been filed and we can now see that the authorities' plan is even further reaching than initially suggested—though you won't see me shedding a tear if this break up ever comes to pass.

Not only will a judge be asked to enforce Google's sale of Chrome, but the filing made to a Washington federal court also outlines that, "following its divestiture of Chrome [Google] may not reenter the browser market for five years" (via The Guardian).

The proposal also calls for Google to be prohibited from "acquiring any interests in search rivals, potential entrants, and rival search or search ads-related AI products," and that it must let go of any it already holds in its clutch. Furthermore, the documents additionally call for a halt to all "anticompetitive payments to distributors, including Apple" that are made to ensure Google is the default search engine on various companies' devices.

Speaking of AI, the DoJ's proposal also recommends that Google offer "data crawling rights" to parties such as content creators, so that they can choose to opt-out of, say, Google using its work to train its Large Language Model AI. Setting to one side the fact that I, as a person who is infrequently funny on the internet, would personally very much not like to see my words regurgitated by AI, anyone who's recently had to wade through search results flooded with AI dross can see this is a step in the right direction—if it's enforced.

To recap, this is the result of a major court ruling back in August that found that Google had acted illegally to maintain its monopoly over online search and the advertising markets closely intertwined therein. In October, news began to percolate about which remedies the US department of Justice would seek, with its sights set on Android and Chrome for the part these areas of the business played in unfairly prioritising Google Search and related products.

The DoJ's proposals are being brought before the same judge who made that heavy-hitting ruling back in August, Amit Mehta, though we won't know which courses of action he'll pursue before sometime next year. Until then, it's hard to say with certainty how this will affect typical end users, especially as Google has yet to put forward its own counter proposals.

Wednesday's federal filing reveals that Android is still part of the DoJ's contingency plan. The filing identifies Android as "a critical platform on which search competitors rely and for which Google has myriad obvious and not-so-obvious ways to favor its own search product." Therefore, two plans are proposed: One, either Google also divests itself of Android alongside Chrome or, two, selling off Android becomes a last resort depending on if earlier efforts ultimately fail to reign in Google's monopoly.

In response so far, Google has been thrashing around like a dragon reluctant to part with its hoard. In a recent blog post, Google framed the DOJ's proposed remedies as a "radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology leadership." Kent Walker, the president of Global Affairs at Google and its parent company Alphabet, goes on to write, "It would break a range of Google products — even beyond Search — that people love and find helpful in their everyday lives."

The most obvious point of historical comparison would be United States v. Microsoft Corp. back in 2001; the DoJ tried to split Microsoft up due to its hold over the web browser market on Windows machines, though this case ultimately resulted in a settlement. With that in mind, it's hard to know just how far the DoJ will go this time.

The US Department of Justice's top antitrust officials will ask a judge to enforce the sale of the Chrome browser, reports Bloomberg. This follows a major ruling in August that found Google had acted illegally to stifle competition and retain its monopoly on online search and advertising.

Antitrust officials, alongside several US states that have joined the case, will ask federal judge Amit Mehta to order Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company, to sell off Chrome, with markets already scrambling to work out what the browser may be worth. In addition to this, the DOJ is said to be seeking further measures relating to Google's Android OS, AI technologies, and data licensing (ie, allowing third parties and advertisers to access Google's own search engine data).

It is up to the court to make a ruling but, should the judge accept the DOJ's recommendations, this would be the biggest crackdown on a technology company in history. It is also possible that the judge may decide a sale is not necessary if certain other conditions are met. Finally, there's the question of who could even buy it: The companies that have the money to do so, such as Amazon or even Microsoft, might find a Chrome acquisition brings more scrutiny on their own fiefdoms than it's worth.

Chrome is the most popular internet browser in the world (web tracker Similarweb puts its current global market share at 64.61%), and integrated fully with Google's lucrative ads business. It tracks users, personalises recommendations, and directs users towards other Google products such as GSuite and Gemini. It is impossible to overstate how important it is to Google's business, and unsurprisingly Google is going to fight this tooth-and-nail.

The DOJ "continues to push a radical agenda that goes far beyond the legal issues in this case," said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs. "The government putting its thumb on the scale in these ways would harm consumers, developers and American technological leadership at precisely the moment it is most needed."

Perhaps Google should give thanks this is the battle it may be fighting: The same report claims that the DOJ decided not to go for the most severe remedy, which would have been forcing it to spin off Android. But the DOJ will apparently recommend that Google separate-out Android from its other products such as the Google Play store.

Needless to say there are some twisty paths to follow. Judge Mehta’s August ruling that Google broke antitrust laws is still subject to appeal by Google, which it is near-certain to do. At the same time, the judge has scheduled a hearing for April 2025 to hear proposed remedies to Google's behaviour, and a final ruling is pencilled in for August 2025. But something tells me the timeline won't be that cut-and-dried.

The DOJ has not commented on the report.

Your favourite ad blocker may not be long for this world. Users looking to add the extremely popular uBlock Origin to their speedy Chrome browser have been met with the following message: "This extension may soon no longer be supported because it doesn't follow best practices for Chrome extensions."

The associated support page alludes to concerns about users' privacy and security, but the bigger picture centres on Chrome’s Manifest V3 extension update. The Manifest V3 update is a pretty seismic shift, as it will likely also affect any web browser built using Google's free and open-source Chromium project, such as Microsoft Edge and Opera.

Chrome Manifest versions can be thought of as a list of rules for browser extensions to follow, detailing what APIs developers can use and what permissions extensions can have access to. Anyway, put a pin in that Manifest definition because the 'permissions' part becomes incredibly important later on.

Manifest V2 was the dominant specification for years, though Chrome is set to phase it out entirely by June 2025. Some users on newer Chromebook models already lack the option to download browser extensions still using Manifest V2, according to PCWorld.

As uBlock Origin still uses this older Manifest version, that's bad news for the ad blocker's existing 40 million users on Chrome. uBlock Origin Lite is a Manifest V3 compliant alternative, though lone developer Raymond Hill describes it as "a pared-down version" that's had to "sacrifice many features" in order to comply with the new framework.

Ghostery, a company that develops a variety of ad blocking and privacy tools for a number of browsers, offered some insight as to why V3 represents such a shift in a recent interview with PCWorld. Ghostery's director of engineering, Krzysztof Modras, puts it plainly, "The most important limitation of Manifest V3 is the removal of extension access to the browser’s network layer."

This creates a permissions nightmare for developers. For instance, rather than automatically blocking ads across multiple websites, V3 will instead require extensions like uBlock Origin Lite to request access from the user on a per site basis. 

Talk about pop up fatigue. Not only that, but V3's stricter limits on dynamic and static rules mean you'll notice a distinct slow down when it comes to how frequently ad blocking lists are updated, ultimately ensuring your ad blocking extensions are a lot less effective. That said, not all browsers are pulling support for Manifest V2, and Hill assures development of uBlock Origin will continue—just on Firefox.

So if Manifest V2 is still good enough for Firefox, what's going on? Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney took to X to share his own strongly worded take, claiming, "Google [is] using its dominant Windows browser market share anticompetitively to shore up its ad monopoly by blocking ad blockers."

Speaking with PC World, Ghostery CEO Jean-Paul Schmetz offered less ruffled analysis, saying, "Google is probably too complicated as an organization to [use Manifest V3 changes to protect its advertising interests] efficiently. What is absolutely clear is that they tried to make Chrome a more predictable platform [in terms of ads], because Chrome for them is a very important platform for the rest of their monopolies."

While those monopolies may not reign for much longer, it's still bad news in the meantime for those using ad blockers on Google's browser, which is likely to be many of you. Firefox is definitely a tempting option in the face of all of that, however it's been making headlines recently with ongoing privacy concerns of its own. No browser is perfect, but I reckon 'will it let me block ads?' is going to be the deciding factor that wins out for most.

We Windows users are sometimes the butt of the joke when it comes to cybersecurity issues. Or at least, we often used to be. Still, if I receive one more lecture on why Linux or Mac systems are more secure, I'll at least have this article to point to. Not always, I shall say. Not always.

Oligo Security's research team has discovered a “0.0.0.0 Day” vulnerability that affects Google Chrome/Chromium, Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari browsers, enabling websites to communicate with software running on MacOS and Linux systems (via The Hacker News).

The vulnerability means public websites using .com domains are able to communicate with services running on the local network by using the IP address 0.0.0.0 instead of localhost/127.0.0.1.

The good news, if you're a Windows user at least, is that Microsoft's OS blocks 0.0.0.0 at a system level. Hooray for the sometimes-rarer-than-we'd-like Microsoft security win. The bad news for the rest of you is that this loophole is said to have been exploitable since 2006, which means it has been an active cybersecurity vulnerability for an astonishing 18 years.

It's said that the percentage of websites that communicate using 0.0.0.0 is on the rise. Looking at Chromium counters, Oligo has identified 0.015% of websites that could potentially be malicious. That might not sound like a lot, but according to the team, there are an estimated 200 million active websites as of August 2024. 

That's potentially 100,000 websites communicating over that particular IP address, although how many of them are using that capability for nefarious purposes is currently unknown.

Oligo disclosed its findings to security teams from each of the major browsers affected in April 2024, which the company says was acknowledged by each, and that changes are underway to plug the vulnerability.

However, it's up to browser developers to implement their respective fixes, and those fixes have been rolling out to different browsers at different times.  Chrome is already blocking access to 0.0.0.0—starting with Chromium 128—and Google plans to gradually roll out the change with completion set for Chrome 133.

Apple-based browsers like Safari use Webkit, which has already blocked 0.0.0.0. since the report. As for Mozilla Firefox, there is currently no immediate fix, but Mozilla has changed the Fetch specification to block 0.0.0.0 attempts. According to Oligi, "at an undetermined point in the future, 0.0.0.0 will be blocked by Firefox."

Call me slightly smug, but given some high-profile Windows cybersecurity-related failures of late I'll take any win I can get. If you're a Windows PC user, it's finally time to take a victory lap. This one's not on us, folks, and we can rest easy in our beds tonight.

If your YouTube watching has been plagued with an occasional checkerboard effect in recent years, you may have cause for celebration—the Windows 11 KB5037853 Preview build offers a fix.

The issue seems to have affected those using Chromium-based browsers to playback video on certain GPUs, with some Nvidia RTX card owners complaining of visual distortions and garbled video output.

While there are multiple workarounds (and reports that previous Windows updates may have fixed the issue), our Nick has confirmed that the bug is no longer present on his RTX 4080 Super machine since the recent update, which lists in its notes that:

"This update addresses an issue that distorts parts of the screen. This occurs when you use a Chromium-based browser to play a video."

While some have pointed the finger at Nvidia drivers or Chrome for causing the problem, whatever was changed behind the scenes in Windows 11 seems to have done the trick. Checkerboards and garbled video outputs are gone for good, it seems, and you can now go back to consuming vast amounts of video as fast as your eyeballs will allow, with no ugly distractions.

Those who are not signed up for Windows Preview builds can do so by clicking the "get the latest updates as soon as they're available" toggle in Windows Update settings, and install the latest version from there.

It's not just bug fixes in the latest release, either. New features include mouse dragging between breadcrumbs in the File Explorer address bar, a "Linked Devices" page in account settings for managing multiple PCs and Xbox consoles, and a new account manager for the Start menu.

Still, this certainly sounds like it was an annoying problem, and one many will be glad to see the back of. Although I haven't personally witnessed it on my main machine with its AMD card. See, there are advantages to going team red! If only ray tracing performance was one of them…

Not content to merely sit on our laurels as the world's best PC gaming website in your regular browser, now we want to infiltrate your desktop apps as well. Kidding— mostly kidding—but those of you with the latest Chrome Canary build could well make that dream a reality. With a bit of light tweaking you can add an "Install page as an app" option to the browser letting you drop app shortcuts onto your PC desktop (via Android Police).

If we're being totally transparent, you can do it for any website, not just this glorious collection of PC gaming and PC gaming hardware delights. Chrome Canary is the daily build version of Google Chrome, and it's generally a few steps ahead of the stable release build of the browser, often featuring the absolute latest changes under testing from the developers.

The most recent version is running an early build of Chrome 124, as opposed to the current stable release build of 122. We've put together a handy little guide to enabling the feature below, but as an early warning, Canary builds can run into a multitude of issues thanks to the untested nature of the software, so we wouldn't recommend this for an everyday browsing experience. 

However, it does provide an insight at what may well be coming next for Chrome users, providing testing goes according to plan.

This feature is an extension of Google's phasing out of Chrome apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux, and instead replacing them with with Progressive Web Apps (PWAs) that can be installed to your desktop and act as a regular program. And by the looks of the results here, it may not be long before stable Chrome builds feature the, err, feature.

How to convert a website into a web app with Google Canary

Those of you that would like to check it out for yourselves can install Google Canary and then input the commands below in the browser bar to enable the following flags:

chrome://flags/#web-app-universal-install

chrome://flags/#shortcuts-not-apps

Then after restarting the browser, navigate to the website you'd like to install (we're not judging you, we promise) and in the dropdown settings menu find "Save and share", before clicking on "Install page as an app…"

You'll then be given a confirmation box to confirm your—hopefully exceptional—choice in website app installation, and hey presto, you should now have a desktop shortcut to your app, along with the option to pin it to the taskbar.

Lovely. As features go this is a particularly cool one, as while it's always been possible to create a shortcut to a web page on your desktop to open a browser window, converting it into an application on the fly makes for a rather neat and tidy way of accessing your favourite sites.

We'll assume you're only going to do it for PC Gamer, of course, but sites like YouTube and Reddit have had their own PWAs for a while now, so you'll find a slightly differently worded option if you attempt the process there. 

Well, we don't like to be behind the times, so if I was you I'd make the process of converting PC Gamer into a functional web app the highest priority of the day. Or maybe just wait for the release build, if the feature makes it out of testing, I guess. You do you, my friends. You do you.

The use of generative AI, machine learning algorithms that can produce images, text, or even sound, is rapidly spread across the software industry. The likes of Photoshop and Windows, plus countless others, all now sport a simple button that claims to magically do things that we simply couldn't do before. And now it's the turn of Chrome, as Google has added three AI tools to its browser, though only for US folks at the moment.

Just like all of the software giants, Google has been investing heavily in machine learning for a good while, so it was only a matter of time before the fruits of such labours would be leveraged into its applications. In the case of Chrome, the new v121 update includes a new field in the Settings page, labelled 'Experimental AI.'

Unfortunately, as a resident of the UK, I can't actually see how the options are displayed but Google says that they're in that particular section. It's also worth noting that if you're using an enterprise or educational account, then the new features will be disabled for now.

The first tool basically uses machine learning to organise all of the tabs you may have open. As someone who never has more than 15 open at any one time, it's not something I'd ever use, but if you're a tab hoarder (or someone who just never closes them), then having something that automatically suggests and creates tab groups for you could be handy.

I can't say that I'm overly convinced by how useful it really is, partly because I can't test it myself, but mostly because the task itself isn't very arduous. I mean, how many people think to themselves 'I simply cannot organise my tabs and need help from an algorithm'?

I have similar feelings about the second tool, which uses a spot of generative AI to create new themes for your Chrome account. It works just like most text-to-image models do: Type in a few words, select a few options to control how the generation process works, and then select your choice from one of six final results.

The example shown below does look pretty sweet, and it makes a change from using standard blank colours, but how often are people going to use it? Once you're past the initial novelty period, you'll probably set it once and then never change it for months, if not years.

The tool that will perhaps get used the most is the final one in the new Chrome update. It's generative AI once again and very much of the ChatGPT ilk. If you have a text field on a webpage and you need to write something quite lengthy into it, then right-click on the text box and select 'Help me write.'

After that, Google's AI servers will work their magic and churn out a body of text, based on your initial line of writing. For example, let's say you wanted to write a review about a product, you could enter 'The RoboBot 6000 is a programmable toy robot' and then, in theory, the AI model will then flesh this out into something that you can then edit and post.

Such systems are notoriously unreliable at times, and it does make me wonder how many more erroneous AI-generated posts we'll see on social media and discussion boards now that Google has added the feature into the world's most commonly used web browser.

I guess that's progress for you. If any of this sounds appealing to you, and you're based in the US, just update Chrome, restart it, and then check out the Settings menu.

AdBlock users have been reporting widespread performance issues with the extension enabled on YouTube, and while suspicion justifiably fell on YouTube's head, the problem may not lie in the platform itself.

In a thread posted to the YouTube subreddit over the weekend (thanks, 9to5Google) users noted that having AdBlock enabled caused slow load times and increased CPU usage, as one user writes: "This messes up the resources on the computer as a whole. It just kills chrome it seems."

I decided to test this myself, and I noticed that having YouTube open with AdBlock increased my rig's CPU usage by around 17%. While using AdBlock or similar programs is against the website's terms of service, AdBlock is also a massively popular extension. On the Chrome web store it boasts 60 million users.

From what I could see the increase was pretty consistent—so not a dangerous spike—but lower-end laptops mainly used for browsing could start having heat problems. At best it's inconvenient and annoying.

This has led to troubleshooting paranoia, as sudden and unexplained performance dips can be a sign of hardware problems. User JotaroKujoxXx says they were "wondering why my laptop ran like a fucking jet for the last few days", while another commenter replies: "Yeah I've been deleting shit randomly thinking it was my storage space problem." 

The slow-down also appears to be impacting users who are subscribed to YouTube Premium while using AdBlocker for other websites, which is a problem—seeing as a subscription is a way to avoid ads without violating ToS, causing some users to feel hard done by. Our Guides Writer Sarah James tested the extension with Premium, and noted an increase of about 15-18%.

While YouTube has come under severe suspicion—including from myself—said suspicion was not entirely unwarranted. In November of last year, TheVerge reported a five-second loading delay on other browsers running ad blockers, and the company's statements created a solid M.O for this kind of thing.

The report stated that YouTube's communications manager Christopher Lawton "said that users will keep seeing issues like this as YouTube’s ad-blocker detection methods improve". These measures have made the company first-in-line to blame for any problems with these extensions—even when, as it turns out, it's (relatively) innocent.

YouTube responds, blame may lie in AdBlock Update

I've received a comment from Christopher Lawton (YouTube's communication manager) who says in no uncertain terms: "loading delays experienced by Adblock and AdBlock Plus users are not caused by our ad blocker detection efforts." 

That's to be taken with whatever pinches of salt you deem fit, though there's been some compelling evidence surfacing on AdBlock's github page which suggests that YouTube is innocent in the whole debacle, past transgressions aside.

As highlighted by beepingcomputer, the issue trackers on GitHub for both AdBlock and AdBlock Plus have been reporting problems with the extension's latest updates (5.17 and 3.22 respectively). This was further highlighted by Raymond Hill of uBlock Origin on Twitter.

"I investigated a bit the performance regressions, and the cause is many distinct code paths, [which] affect many sites" wrote Hill, later highlighting sites which update dynamically. "Since it affects both Adblock Plus and AdBlock, the performance regression hits harder those who had the bad idea to use both at once."

While uBlock was acquired by AdBlock in 2018, it should be noted that Hill works on uBlock Origin, a version of the extension that remained independent after uBlock's acquisition. 

It should be also noted that Hill doesn't have much to gain from pointing this stuff out. uBlock Origin is free, open-source, and doesn't take donations. Instead, as Hill writes on the project's GitHub wiki: "Have a thought for the maintainers of the various [block] lists. These lists are everything. I can not emphasise this enough."

So there's the rub: the blame likely falls with AdBlock, and the problems may impact other websites. YouTube simply found itself in the unenviable position of being a very popular platform, being the most impacted by the bug, and having the least benefit of the doubt considering its past aggressive anti-ad blocker measures.

In the on-going cat and mouse game that is modern cybersecurity, even the really big names in the industry can sometimes be caught by surprise. Google's software security team, the very super-spy sounding "The Threat Analysis Group", announced a hidden exploit in Chrome and Chromium-based browsers on November 24, and Google has since patched it along with a number of other security fixes. 

It may take some time for the update to spread to all affected devices, so it might be worth keeping a closer eye on your browser updates over the next few days and weeks to make sure you're using the very latest version.

Google is understandably keeping the details of the exploit, which it's labelled CVE-2023-6351, under wraps for now, but it has noted that it's an integer overflow issue in Skia, which is an open source 2D graphics library that Chrome and Chromium-based browsers like Edge and Opera use to draw 2D images like buttons, text and menus. Integer overflow exploits can be used to crash your browser and gain access, so the severity rating of "high" seems more than appropriate here.

Zero-day vulnerabilities are nothing new of course, and all major software developers keep a close eye on potential exploits in order to patch them before any opportunistic parties can take advantage of them. However, Google's admission that this exploit exists "in the wild" is somewhat concerning, as it suggests that it was possibly being used for nefarious purposes already.

While companies devote huge amounts of time and resources to closing holes and squashing bugs and potential exploits before they happen, it's inevitable that a few are going to slip through the cracks. As always, the best recommendation is to keep your software updated at all times, and to pay attention to potential fixes that may have not yet reached your machine. 

This latest batch of vulnerabilities were fixed in the 119.0.6045.199 Chromium update, and Edge has also released a fix, so if you use Chrome or a Chromium-based browser it's worth checking your update history to make sure you're fully protected. Stay safe out there. 

A Reddit thread by u/nixcraft (via itsfoss) noticed a downward trend from Firefox's own Public Data Report that shows nearly 46 million users ditching Firefox over the last three years for a different internet browser.  

At the end of 2018, the reported active monthly users of the Firefox desktop client were about 244 million, but in Q2 2021 that number dropped to 198 million users. While still an impressive number, the slow decline of users could be a more telling sign of things to come for the top alternative to Chromium browsers. 

Mozilla launched Firefox back in 2002 as a more user-friendly web browser that focused on privacy and security. By 2008 Firefox was responsible for 30% of all browser usage, with Internet Explorer still having the lion's share of the market at around 60% and Google Chrome in its infancy. Now, Chrome sits atop the web browser throne at 65% of the market share, with Firefox and Edge accounting for around 3% apiece on desktop, mobile devices, and consoles. 

Why the drop-off? Firefox users have often complained about the lack of substantial performance updates in the last few years, along with the divisive Firefox 89 UI overhaul that convinced some long-time users to try their luck with other browsers. It also doesn't help that Google Chrome is now the default browser on nearly all Android devices around the world, Microsoft Edge is doing the same on Windows machines, and we can't forget Safari on Macs and iPhones.  

With more and more websites optimizing for Chrome so that they will load faster, it'll be an uphill battle for Firefox to remain competitive and peel users away from the Google ecosystem. With 197 million users, Firefox isn't going to disappear overnight, and some folks still really like what Mozilla is doing. Still, it'll be very interesting to see what the next steps are for the open-source browser. 

A USB thumbdrive can be a lot of things—a backup of important photos, a quick transfer device for big files, a cheap way to give out documents. It can also be a Swiss Army knife of portable software, filled with software that runs straight off the USB drive. These tools can be useful for working with computers you can't install your own software on, or laptops that have dropped the CD drive for a thinner chassis. Our colleagues at TechRadar have covered a variety of portable tools, and we've put together six we recommend below. Make your own USB Swiss Army knife.

CCleaner Portable

We've written about why we consider CCleaner an essential tool. You can and should install it on your PC to clean out junk files and fix registry errors. But what if you want to run CCleaner on a computer at school with limited account privileges, or help out a relative for a one-time clean-up? Install CCleaner portable to a thumb drive instead, run it on whatever machine you want, and walk away. Easy.

Download CCleaner Portable

VLC Media Player Portable

VLC is another one of our essential tools, and it's just as essential as a portable media player. With a big 64GB flash drive, you can load up on movies and TV shows and play them on any device with a USB port. With VLC portable on the drive, you won't have to worry about file compatibility issues or having an Internet connection to download a working player. You'll have all you need in your pocket.

Download VLC Media Player Portable

Google Chrome Portable

What kind of computer doesn't have a web browser installed already? Realistically, no computer—but your parents may still use Internet Explorer, no matter how hard you try to convince them to change. With Chrome Portable, you can use your own browser on someone else's computer, access your bookmarks and other synced profile information. Seriously, though—convince mom and dad to use a better browser.

Download Chrome Portable

Ubuntu

The Ubuntu Live CD (especially in USB drive form) is an invaluable tool for Windows users. You can use it to install Ubuntu, of course, but if you're happily running Windows, it serves a different purpose. When Windows won't boot, or you have a nasty virus, and it seems like a total reinstall is the only solution, you're probably confronting a terrible realization: there are some very important files you haven't backed up. You're going to lose them. Enter the Live CD: you can run Ubuntu off a USB drive, access all your files, and back them up. You may even be able to clear out that virus or fix your Windows errors while you're at it. Here's how to create a bootable Ubuntu USB drive.

Download Ubuntu

ImgBurn

Okay, we're actually cheating a bit with these last two. While not a portable tool like the ones listed above, ImgBurn is a great tool for making other files portable. ImgBurn is a free, very easy tool for creating disc image ISOs from CDs or DVDs, or creating a disc image from a file folder. It's a great way to rip old game discs so you can mount them later in a virtual drive. Just don't forget to copy down those old serials. While you can grab a portable version here , this is one you'll probably want to install on your main PC, or wherever you'll be ripping those old discs you have lying around.

Download ImgBurn

Daemon Tools Lite

Daemon Tools isn't portable, either, but it's the other side of the ImgBurn equation. If you create a bunch of portable disc image files or backups with ImgBurn, you'll need something to mount them with, and Daemon Tools is the age-old standby. You can mount any image with a few clicks from the system tray, and Windows will treat it like a real physical disc drive.

You can't install Daemon Tools to a USB thumbdrive, but it's an important piece of software to have on an Ultrabook or other computer with no disc drive, and you can always keep an installer handy on your USB key. At some point, you'll likely have to install something that comes on a CD, and Daemon Tools will be there to help.

Download Daemon Tools Lite

Looking for more portable apps for your USB multitool? Check out PortableApps.com .

Windows 8.1 has been out since October 2013, but we still cling to our installs of Windows 7. We love its reliability, even if it's missing some of Windows 8's under-the-hood improvements. If you're also still using Windows 7, your gaming PC is probably loaded with years of accumulated software. But are you using the best? Our colleagues at TechRadar put together a list of the best free programs for Windows 7, and we've boiled that list down to the 10 programs we think are essentials. If you don't have these programs installed already, here's why you should download them.

1. CCleaner

Who doesn't love a clean computer? Even if you religiously empty your recycle bin and clean out your browser cache, there are still files that pile up in Windows that you can do without. Running CCleaner every few months will keep your system clear of temporary files and error logs and leftover registry strings. If you're running Windows on an SSD, you may be surprised by how much vital space you free up with CCleaner, and a system cleanup only takes about a minute.

Download CCleaner

2. Notepad++

Even if you're not a programmer by trade, Notepad++ is a great piece of software to have on your computer. It vastly expands on the basics of Notepad with tabs, powerful search, a customizable GUI, and support for multiple programming languages. It knows how to parse code and linebreaks and can make a jumbled mass of text into something perfectly readable. It can also add a handy link to your Windows context menu for quickly opening up text files. If your text editing needs are modest, you'll appreciate Notepad++'s speed and accessibility. If you need to do heavy-duty coding work, you'll love the depth of its options menus and how customizable it is. An absolute must-have.

Download Notepad++

3. 7-Zip

You're probably already using 7-Zip. You are, right? Right? In the land of zipping, 7-Zip is king. Small, unobtrusive, but able to zip or unzip every format under the sun, with great context menu support thrown in to make it even faster. We've got nothing against WinRAR--it's perfectly fine! But you know, don't you get tired of that pop-up asking you to pay? 7-Zip doesn't want your money. It just wants to unzip things for you. Won't you let it?

Download 7-Zip

4. Adobe Reader

Adobe software has a reputation for bloat, and it's true that there are lighter PDF applications out there. Foxit's PDF Reader, for example, is a good tool if you only need to read PDFs. But if you ever need to edit PDFs, Acrobat Reader gets the job done. It's free, includes easy tools for adding text or a signature to a document. It can also export as a Word document or

Download Adobe Reader

5. Defraggler

Windows 7 does a good job of automatically defragmenting your harddrives quietly in the background. Most likely, your drives are trucking along just fine without you manually defragging them. But sometimes--after moving a ton of files, or making space on an overly full hard drive--you want to do some manual defragging. Defraggler, from the creators of CCleaner, will do the trick. More importantly, it can do targeted defragmenting. You can see what files or drive sectors are fragmented, and specifically defragment those, without waiting two hours for your entire drive to be cleaned up.

Download Defraggler

6. Recuva

Recuva is a handy tool to have around when things go south. You accidentally delete a file, and Recuva can help you get it back. It's designed to help with a simple undelete, or to go digging for files that may still be accessible even after you've formatted a disk. Recuva can also help with the opposite task: if you have a file you really want to erase, Recuva can help securely overwrite that file's spot on the hard disk to make it much tougher to recover.

Download Recuva

7. VLC Media Player

If VLC can't play it, it's probably broke. That's not VLC's slogan, but it may as well be. This free, open source video player comes with built-in video codecs for just about any file format imaginable. It's simple. It's powerful. It's an absolute essential video player, and is constantly dueling for my affection with the also-great Media Player Classic . VLC offers a couple extra features that I love: it can crank volume up to the 200% mark, which is important for quieter files, and it can easily adjust audio playback speed, which makes it a handy tool for transcribing. It may be the best video player on PC, but it's good for audio, too!

Download VLC Media Player

8. Handbrake

You've got an .avi that needs to be an .mp4. Or an .mp4 that needs to be an .mkv. What do you do? You could mess around with heavy-duty video editing software or one of a million crappy website transcoding options that don't work very well. Or you could simply download Handbrake, and it'll solve all your problems. This open source transcoder is easy to use--you can drag a file into it, set a few quality options, and hit the big green start button--and it'll fix up any video file as a shiny new .mp4 or .mkv. If you do any video editing, Handbrake should be in your arsenal.

Download Handbrake

9. Google Chrome

We use Chrome. You probably use Chrome. Google's browser has grown from a scrappy Firefox alternative into the de facto web browser, and it's still the one we install for our parents or grab first thing when we have a clean Windows machine. There have been some bumps along the road in Chrome's development--sometimes it gets slow or crashy for a release or two--but it's hard to imagine living without some of its features, like tab and password syncing between desktop and laptop and smartphone.

Download Google Chrome

10. LastPass

Unless you already use a password manager or have an incredible memory, you probably overuse the same password on too many websites. Most of us do! It's okay: you can make things better before a hacker waltzes off with all your personal information. Using LastPass is a great starting point. The free service lets you create a master password, then creates strings of gibberish for all of your accounts, so you never have to worry about one website breach compromising all of your information. LastPass will also remember an autofill all your passwords, and you can install it on multiple devices to keep the sign-in process easy. It's a painless password manager to use, and will make your data far more secure. You've got nothing to lose.

Dowload LastPass