What goes with Avast and this campaign by Google? My understanding is that some anti-malware producers are disabling monitoring of Google Chrome.
Can you provide info on this statement? ???
There has been something in the forums recently on this and it is Google that is doing the complaining about AV products that have plugins/add-ons for browsers. Google are complaining that it effects their browser and users are blaming Chrome.
Actually I don’t think thats the reason, I don’t have time to find the link now but from what I read Chrome is marking any program that injects dlls into their browser as incompatible, so this would apply to any anti-virus program that does this. I know Malwarebytes no longer protects Chrome by default in their anti-exploit protection and Emsisoft’s Surf Protection does not work in Chrome anymore. If you go to Settings in Chrome and scroll right to the bottom and click on “Update or remove incompatible applications” it will show you if Chrome thinks your AV is incompatible or not.
Found this:
13 Jul
Chris H. Hamilton said:
Chrome dev here. This is related to a new feature that aims to prevent third party software from injecting into Chrome’s processes and interfering with its code. This type of software injection is rampant on the Windows platform, and causes significant stability issues (crashes). The Microsoft Edge browser already does this kind of blocking, and we are in the process of making Chrome behave similarly. What you are seeing is the warning phase of year-long effort to enable blocking, originally announced in November 2017.
Since it is effectively impossible for Chrome to automatically determine whether any particular piece of software is innocently injecting or purposefully injecting and interfering with Chrome code. To keep things simple we warn about all injected software, without making value judgments. Note that soon we will actually start blocking software from injecting, at which point this warning will cease to show. Note that you should only be seeing these crashes if you manually navigate to the chrome://settings/incompatibleApplications page, or on a startup after the Chrome browser has crashed.
Additionally, this feature is currently considered experimental so not all users will see these warnings.
Hi guys, see: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/bitdefender-disables-anti-exploit-monitoring-in-chrome-after-google-policy-change/ (Avast statement included)
Google obviously disapproves of Devil’s Advocates. It presumably arrogantly believes that it alone can ensure that Chrome is impregnable to all malware exploits and no third party is to be allowed to provide the user with the benefits of its independently acquired expertise. What happens when Google devs become complacent or simply fail to prevent exploits that independent minds would have perceived?
There are other Chrome browsers which are not under Google’s control.
Yep (like e.g. ASB), or just switch to Firefox. 
I don’t share the issues/concerns expressed here with Chrome as I don’t use it.
Found it too intrusive…go figure.
I tried Chrome a few times many years ago and I have never found Chrome to my liking. Much as I have on the times I tried Opera.
Currently using Avast Secure Browser as my default. Google Chrome was my default prior to that.
I still quite often go back to Chrome when the Secure Browser can’t handle things. 
To be fair, the Secure Browser is still “learning”.
I do use ASB at times and have it installed on both OS’s as second Browser. Agreed ASB is still progressing/Learning however on both laptops ASB uses more resources then Firefox my default Browser,
I like ASB but not as much as FF,
Hi schmidthouse,
With their position via acquired VirusTotal, Google Safebrowsing, and their https everywhere campaign for example their mono-culture behaviour is more and more that of “butchers that are inspecting the quality of their own meat”, and that is not always Thueringer. ;D
Also look with the url/uri bar without www changed into sort of a search bar in their latest Google Chrome version to be able turn more and more url queries into google-owned clicks. That is clickbaiting for their core-business, but you do not hear any protest from regulators anywhere :o. No EU regulators, because Google too big to fail, too mighty to ignore as long as it “does not do evil”, and many instances living hand in foot with good old Big Silicon Valley’s Google.
This does not diminish the fact that google with their enormous market-driven proliferation did a lot to enhance the security infrastructure on the Interwebz, be it the Google way as any wannabe monopolist would behave. Learn their shortcuts by heart, you may need them some day, as in Holland for instance the proliferation of their browser is nearing 97 percent, even profoundly more than the 67% in the USA, where older users still think Big Blue E is a synonym for being on the Internet.
polonus
I have rediscovered Opera. It is the most similar in the Chrome family of browsers to Google Chrome but the corporate ethic is not the same. It is obviously a descendent of Opera 12.17 and has clearly had a lot of thought put into security and the user experience.
Since Opera is now China based/owned, nothing I would use, but do as you like.
We really here a bit between a rock and a hard stone, aren’t we, folks?
polonus
The Opera.com website says nothing about that. The domain registrant is in Oslo. :o
Well, not really, (as said) just switch to Firefox.
Seems, you’re a bit late to the party. But ok, here we go…
→ https://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/5st2v5/is_opera_now_owned_by_chinese_golden_brick_still/
→ https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/62kr6d/is_opera_really_safe_now_that_its_owned_by_a/
The domain registration doesn’t necessarily reflect the Owner. I would guess there are many similar instances when a company is bought out and becomes part of a bigger company.