A fake Adblock plus installed by 37000 users.

Recently a fake Adblock plus installed through the official Chrome Web Store.

The fake extension and the original were in the store with the original one. About 37,000 users has installed this fake extension. Now if you use Adblock Plus with Chrome and have downloaded the extension recently, you may want to check what you’ve installed. Google has taken down the listing after SwiftOnSecurity tweeted about it.

Adblock plus

Differentiation between original and fake extension of Adblock plus:-

According to a blog post from the genuine Adblock Plus, the fake version, which used the exact same name (other than a capital B in AdBlock), was marketed as an app in the Chrome Store as opposed to an extension. Techradar has said about the fake reviews on this extension.

http://www.techradar.com/news/fake-adblock-plus-extension-takes-the-shine-off-chromes-reputation-for-security

A fraud developer has created this extension. And he clones popular brand names. Though, it is difficult to differentiate between original Adblock plus and the fake one, as both has the same name. Moreover, the fake extension has a good number of reviews.

Adblock plus

Data breach and Mavertising: –

Invasive ads are popping up after installation of fake extension of Adblock plus.  Lots of tabs open after installation. Unfortunately, it’s unclear if it has even more detrimental effects or not.  Engadget reports that some users of the fake extension have said they’ve been affected by rogue adverts opening multiple tabs.

Google recently removed an app from its Chrome Web Store that looked like Adblock plus. However, now those 37000 users might be on the lookout for a possible data breach. Though data breach may not be as bad as Malvertising.

Malvertising involves injecting malware into advertisements on legitimate websites or through online ad networks.

Action taken by Google: – Though Adblock plus has attracted millions of users over the last several years. And Google acted quickly to remove this version but has yet to explain how its verification procedures failed to recognize it.