This blog is on the malwarebytes website. Malwarebytes says in thr post thst its not fair to call this spyware. This was brought up on the windows side as well.
What is really going on: claude desktop is installing the hooks for the claude browser extension. If you install the browser extension, claude desktop can control the browser. This is the intended behavior so you can have an agent do something like “in the morning, access these three sites, pull down the data and create a newsletter for me” or “please check flight costs throughout the day on these sites” or whatever you want to access the browser for.
This is the whole reason you install claude desktop, to automate your computer.
Even if this was an opt-in feature the implementation is still terrible and a massive security hole. If id wanted the desktop app entirely and solely for this purpose i still would not expect my browser extension to have full access to my computer. I understand the app does, not the browser extension.
No matter how you twist and turn this situation Anthtopic has still introduced a major security issue in their application. It might be a bit far to call it malware immediately but it sure does open up a massive attack vector to take advantage of.
The fact that the end user is not even informed or have a choice about this makes it all the more problematic and Anthropic not commenting on it makes me think its either intentional or at the very least already known.
Your comment seems very dismissive in the way you phrase this as intended behaviour. A security flaw like this can impossibly be intended behaviour.
In my previous comment i also say thats calling it malware is a bit far-fetched but the security issues are absolutely there and should not be dismissed as “intended behaviour”. Especially not by a company like Anthropic.
I am not well versed in extension development but is there anything stopping me from making an open source extension and just defining the ID as one of the three in the article? It most likely couldnt be released via the chrome addon store but if it is installed outside of thar? And how are these IDs read after install, could it potentially be altered by something from the outside?
I immediately see so many flaws with this implementation it is worrying that a company the size of Anthropic does this.
This is a little disengenuous…the browser extension ≠ the desktop app. Some people install the app and only use the chat feature. Some use cowork but would never want to use the browser extension. Assuming that installing a desktop app means you should also want the browser extension is just bad logic.
You cant access the browser unless you insta the extension. The desktop app just places jooks for the extension if it is ever installed. It wont work with out the extension
This blog is on the malwarebytes website. Malwarebytes says in thr post thst its not fair to call this spyware. This was brought up on the windows side as well.
What is really going on: claude desktop is installing the hooks for the claude browser extension. If you install the browser extension, claude desktop can control the browser. This is the intended behavior so you can have an agent do something like “in the morning, access these three sites, pull down the data and create a newsletter for me” or “please check flight costs throughout the day on these sites” or whatever you want to access the browser for.
This is the whole reason you install claude desktop, to automate your computer.
Even if this was an opt-in feature the implementation is still terrible and a massive security hole. If id wanted the desktop app entirely and solely for this purpose i still would not expect my browser extension to have full access to my computer. I understand the app does, not the browser extension.
No matter how you twist and turn this situation Anthtopic has still introduced a major security issue in their application. It might be a bit far to call it malware immediately but it sure does open up a massive attack vector to take advantage of.
The fact that the end user is not even informed or have a choice about this makes it all the more problematic and Anthropic not commenting on it makes me think its either intentional or at the very least already known.
The security issue, as the blog says, is that it trusts any extension with the id. So if you can spoof the extension you have access.
What i was saying is that its not spyware. Which is a different issue.
Your comment seems very dismissive in the way you phrase this as intended behaviour. A security flaw like this can impossibly be intended behaviour.
In my previous comment i also say thats calling it malware is a bit far-fetched but the security issues are absolutely there and should not be dismissed as “intended behaviour”. Especially not by a company like Anthropic.
I am not well versed in extension development but is there anything stopping me from making an open source extension and just defining the ID as one of the three in the article? It most likely couldnt be released via the chrome addon store but if it is installed outside of thar? And how are these IDs read after install, could it potentially be altered by something from the outside?
I immediately see so many flaws with this implementation it is worrying that a company the size of Anthropic does this.
There are many flaws. I am in no way contradicting it or dismissing it.
This is a little disengenuous…the browser extension ≠ the desktop app. Some people install the app and only use the chat feature. Some use cowork but would never want to use the browser extension. Assuming that installing a desktop app means you should also want the browser extension is just bad logic.
You cant access the browser unless you insta the extension. The desktop app just places jooks for the extension if it is ever installed. It wont work with out the extension