Malwarebytes Browser extension

[BendBob]

The browser extension has 2 buttons 1: GO BACK, 2: CONTINUE TO SITE (I'm not 100% sure about this as it is not visible)

The GO BACK button is a NOOP (doesn't do anything) on Windows 10 all updates applied. 

 

 

[exile360]

Greetings,

The function of the go back option depends on how the block occurred.  For cases where you were viewing a safe site and then clicked a link or were redirected to a blocked site, that option will return you to the safe site.  However, if the block occurred as the result of a pop-up such as an ad redirect page (which is what I see more often than not these days, at least during my own browsing sessions) then the go back function won't actually do anything because there is nowhere to go back to since the starting point for that pop-up was the blocked site itself.

[BendBob]

If that's the case, then the usefulness of this tool is about 15% - 20%. This tool should not have bee released without PROPER SQA. Do you know what SQA is? The consumer is not the proper way to do SQA.

[exile360]

Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough.  What I'm saying is this is not a bug at all, just a consequence of how some malicious sites show up and are blocked.

Here is an example scenario of what I'm referring to:

1. You are browsing the web and visit a site
2. You click a link on the site to another page of that same site, but in doing so it also triggers an automatic pop-up advertisement; the advertisement is from a known malicious source (i.e. a tech support scam/malvertisement)
3. The Malwarebytes extension blocks the connection to the malicious ad server so that the resulting pop-up/new tab instead displays the Malwarebytes redirect block page instead of the tech support scam that would have been in its place
4. Since the original URL and the blocked URL are one and the same, there is no "safe" previous site to return to, thus the "go back" function doesn't do anything (it's like trying to use your browser's BACK button when the site you're currently on is the first page you visited; it can't work because there is no previous page to return to)
   

Does that make more sense?

[BendBob]

In my case, I was reading Google news. I clicked on a news story and the Browser Extension warning appeared. I did not have a chance to click any link on the site being warned about, yet I can not GO BACK. In other words: Google news was the only click I made and I can not GO BACK.

I do understand what you wrote, thanks, but the warning should not display GO BACK if I can not GO BACK. Having a stagnant piece of software that can not piece together the correct actions is not useful, IMHO. Working with no formal QA can lead to unwanted support from users like me, sorry.

[exile360]

Unfortunately given the way browser extensions function, I'm not even sure it's possible to have the controls be dynamic so that the go back option isn't present when it doesn't apply, but I will forward your feedback to the team.

For the record, Malwarebytes does have a rather large QA team who handles the testing of their products and tools, however like with all QA, their testing parameters for passing or failure are determined by the specs provided by the Developers, so if the Devs do not deem it a bug for an unnecessary control to be displayed (i.e. they've chosen to use a single standardized set of controls for the block/redirect page), then QA cannot say that it is a bug.  In fact, it would technically be up to the UX (User Experience) team/lead, not QA, to determine whether such a page layout/behavior is acceptable or not, and in this case I must assume that they determined that it was acceptable (having seen other plugins that block ads etc. with similar function and behavior and drawing on that as a baseline, I can understand why as I've seen others do the same thing, showing an unnecessary control sometimes due to the application of a standardized layout).

So what you have highlighted definitely falls into the realm of UX and could be classified as less than ideal given certain specific scenarios, and if they determine that this is sufficient reason to change it, and assuming changing it to make the controls dynamic under these circumstances is possible and worth the additional development effort required to implement the change, then they will correct the UX issue.  If not, then obviously it will remain as it is but I'm not a Dev so I cannot estimate as to the level of difficulty or what the APIs and functions for extensions allow, and of course it has to be possible not only for Chrome, but also Firefox since the extension is available for both browsers, and it's likely that they would prefer consistency across all platforms if possible, so that will also factor into determining whether or not it will be changed.

[BendBob]

Thanks for your time and explanations.

[exile360]

You're welcome, and thank you for the feedback.  I will make certain that it gets to the team for their review and consideration, and hopefully this is something that they will be able to address.