Google Chrome Blocks Java

By | April 29, 2011 | 20 Comments


Google Chrome Blocks JavaJava and security vulnerabilities go together like bread and butter and fortunately for some users, it is now blocked in Google Chrome.

In case web page tries to access Java plug-in, the following message will be displayed:

“The Java plug-in needs your permission to run.”

After such popup, user can select whether he or she wants to run plug-in this time only or whitelist site all together.

For those who would like to disable protection, all you have to do is add –always-authorize-plugins command line flag.

Good news, nonetheless.

Source: Google Chrome Help.


About (Author Profile)


Vygantas is a former web designer whose projects are used by companies such as AMD, NVIDIA and departed Westood Studios. Being passionate about software, Vygantas began his journalism career back in 2007 when he founded FavBrowser.com. Having said that, he is also an adrenaline junkie who enjoys good books, fitness activities and Forex trading.

  • Sony

    This is a great action, hopefully the other browsers will follow soon !

  • Frisco

    This is a great action, hopefully the other browsers will follow soon !

  • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

    It’s a terrible action, it’s like “Adobe told us to block anything but Flash and PDF, you users are idiots!”

  • Anonymous

    Hi Mr. Rafael

    I do not know what your beef is with Chrome (Actually, Can it be that you are one of those few that classify chrome as spyware? Or are your so hell bent that your precious FireFox is being killed softly {Or brutally} by the superior browser? ), but how is this in any way a “terrible action”?

    After Active X, Java has to be the least secure thing. Actually let me paraphrase. It Is!

    Awaiting your documentation to prove me wrong otherwise.

    Regards,

    • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

      Wow, can’t you have been more stupid blind on your argument?
      Actually I use Opera and I have many many reasons not to use Chrome, even wrote a text in Portuguese saying why I don’t use it: http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik/blog/show.dml/29022452
      As for losing territory, I don’t care market share – and worse for your argument: Chrome launch just made Opera downloads get higher.

      • Anonymous

        What does chromes launch have anything with Opera? (Actually you are right. It is common courtesy that people testing Chrome also test Opera. So chrome = free marketing for Opera.)

        I do not give two shits about your text.

        All you have done is call me stupid, stabbed chrome, and proved your blatant fanboyism towards Opera

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/max1cp?feature=mhum Maxim

          Yeah… I’m pretty sure he has a case on calling you stupid. LOL

          • Anonymous

            Ooh must have took you a while to come out with that snide comment.

            Prove it.

            Out of curiosity. Where you actually “Laughing out Loud” like a maniac. Can’t imagine how others around you perceive you right about now

        • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

          Well, if you read my text you’ll see I prove Opera is better *factually*, if you can’t read it by Google Translate just tell me because I’m planning to release it in English (will have a kinda hard job because I’ve been busy, but it’ll be a pleasure to show how Chrome is inferior). Factually, I’m not a simple fanboy, I have base for it, I just choose the “least worse” browser.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry. You may need Opera for its feature set, but for simple browsing I prefer chrome.

            Each to his own.

          • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

            But actually Ctrl + Shift shortcuts are just simple browsing!!! o.O
            All other things I cited is just for browsing… Do you think I do coffee with my browser?

  • Opera & IE fanboy

    I think, This comes from the reaction of google for “Oracle sues Android for using Java Code without paying the license fee”. If not (not reaction) they should block other plugins like flash which also has vulnerabilities.

    • http://my.opera.com/rafaelluik Rafael

      Another good point!! :)

  • http://leshazlewood.com Les Hazlewood

    This is a completely ignorant statement: “Java and security vulnerabilities go together like bread and butter “.

    _Maybe_ that was the case for old Java browser plugins, but it is not the case for Java in general as your comment implies. There are numerous aircraft and missile systems built on the Java platform, so without further clarification, your statement comes across as biased FUD and you lose credibility. Also, have you ever heard of a virus being written in Java?

    Further, Google and Oracle are having a bit of a bout over Java issues at the moment – view that move with a cautionary eye, and not necessarily at face value (as you have done).

    • Anonymous

      Of-course you are pissed off. I mean I would too if I had been writing in a language that is a big security hole. <LOL troll

      Why must you programmers be so condescending?

      But hey I will be following you. I might when I get a twitter account that is. Best of luck for you and your company.

      What is wrong with disqus. arghh. I didn't open any tags

      • http://leshazlewood.com Les Hazlewood

        Who said I was pissed? I’m rather amused at your inability to support your statements with credible data actually :)

        • Anonymous

          :)

          Missed the subtle lol?

  • http://leshazlewood.com Les Hazlewood

    Finally, the burden of proof does not lie on your readers – _you_ are making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies upon you. You are expected to back up your statements instead of making frivolous implications without evidence. Linking to a Google Help page does not prove anything – it only reaffirms that Google has made a particular decision.

    That help page also says that certain plugins ‘occasionally’ might have security issues, without listing the Java plugin specifically. It reflects their opinion, and until you have proven otherwise, your statement is baseless – you’re merely repeating what you’ve read without knowing what you’re talking about.

  • http://leshazlewood.com Les Hazlewood

    Finally, the burden of proof does not lie on your readers – _you_ are making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies upon you. You are expected to back up your statements instead of making frivolous implications without evidence. Linking to a Google Help page does not prove anything – it only reaffirms that Google has made a particular decision.

    That help page also says that certain plugins ‘occasionally’ might have security issues, without listing the Java plugin specifically. It reflects their opinion, and until you have proven otherwise, your statement is baseless – you’re merely repeating what you’ve read without knowing what you’re talking about.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MBVVKZ27VI7BWWQSVUN6WWTZPI Anonymous

    On the surface it would appear to be a good idea, but if you are running Linux and Chrome doesn’t support your distribution (for example Debian Lenny) then you can’t get Chrome and Java updates automatically, and the “script” about authorizing plugins does not work with Linux. 
    So every time you come to a page that wants to run Java, you browser will automatically block it regardless of your wishes.