I like it! Oh, and it's really fast.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031661-56.html)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843 (http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1843)
enough said
Thats hardly damning, every suggest-bar on the internet behaves similarly to this. Also the link provided requires you to click on said download to execute it, how is this new?
Quote from: c0ol on September 04, 2008, 09:40 AM
Thats hardly damning, every suggest-bar on the internet behaves similarly to this. Also the link provided requires you to click on said download to execute it, how is this new?
It isn't new, Apple's Safari had the exact same problem a couple months ago. If you read about Safari's "Carpet Bombing" attack, you'll see that there were a number of ways to leverage it.
For example, if you send them a file called desktop.ini, it's possible to leverage another vulnerability to run the program (which has been done before). Additionally, you can use it to make attacks against other applications that read local files (AV scanners come to mind, there have been a lot of vulnerabilities in those lately). Also, if you name it similar to an installation file (maybe setup.exe or firefox-3.1.exe, for example), when the user downloads the real one, they might click on the wrong one.
Also, it's fairly easy to trick a user into running the file, simply because of how the browser displays it. All it takes is a single click in a place known to the attacker, and the file is executed unprompted: screenshot (http://aviv.raffon.net/content/binary/WindowsLiveWriter/GoogleMule_12ECA/coupwns_2.png). And, because it's a .jar file, Windows won't alert you that it came from an untrusted zone.
So yeah, it's not new, but it is an important vulnerability.
Sucky interface, wrong reasons for the process-per-tab scheme, *really* bad ToU, they try too hard to be revolutionary.
Bottom line: It's one more thing I'll never, ever run.
Quote from: brew on September 04, 2008, 10:35 AM
Sucky interface, wrong reasons for the process-per-tab scheme, *really* bad ToU, they try too hard to be revolutionary.
Bottom line: It's one more thing I'll never, ever run.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/
Quote from: c0ol on September 04, 2008, 10:51 AM
Quote from: brew on September 04, 2008, 10:35 AM
Sucky interface, wrong reasons for the process-per-tab scheme, *really* bad ToU, they try too hard to be revolutionary.
Bottom line: It's one more thing I'll never, ever run.
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/
Hmm, they said, "This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome" -- is that even allowed?
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 11:46 AM
Hmm, they said, "This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome" -- is that even allowed?
I haven't fully read the EULA but I am pretty sure its par for the course to have a "This document is subject to change" kind of clause in there somewhere.
Quote from: c0ol on September 04, 2008, 01:35 PM
Quote from: iago on September 04, 2008, 11:46 AM
Hmm, they said, "This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome" -- is that even allowed?
I haven't fully read the EULA but I am pretty sure its par for the course to have a "This document is subject to change" kind of clause in there somewhere.
Yeah, but those aren't allowed either. :P
Been using it exclusively since it was released. i like it
I like it a lot, I just wish they added a Plugin System... Unless i'm missing something?
they really need to fix the 'carpet bombing' problem, I was in their irc room last night and the dev who was around didn't seem to think that it was even that important for updating, which was kinda lolwut. They also seem like they haven't planned a good long term strategy from what the devs were talking about regarding installation in a multiple user environment. I'll admit the browser is nice though, once its got a decent plugin system (ie. adblock support, which is what everyone and their mother wants) it will probably replace firefox in my day to day
Quote from: AcidAngel on September 05, 2008, 02:39 AM
once its got a decent plugin system (ie. adblock support, which is what everyone and their mother wants) it will probably replace firefox in my day to day
I suspect that the whole reason the released that browser is because they're losing so much revenue to Adblock. I highly doubt they'll allow it. :)
But it IS open source. Who's to say somebody won't start a splinter project and give the people what they want? Then I'm sure google would get their ass in gear :p
They're too used of shitting out absolutely anything they'd like and having the people instantly love it because it's *google*
Quote from: brew on September 05, 2008, 10:57 AM
But it IS open source. Who's to say somebody won't start a splinter project and give the people what they want?
"Platinum" - Chrome + AdBlock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGmO7Oximw8
I am planning on checking it out soon. Right now I have been busy and sort of happy with Firefox but I will check into Google Chrome very soon.
Quote from: brew on September 05, 2008, 10:57 AM
But it IS open source. Who's to say somebody won't start a splinter project and give the people what they want? Then I'm sure google would get their ass in gear :p
Be careful -- it depends on the license.
(I think I read that Chrome is the BSD license, which is ok, but in general it's not always the case)
Much more interesting: stack overflow on the "save as" box. Proof of concept here:
http://security.bkis.vn/Proof-Of-Concept/PoC-XPSP2.html
Quote from: iago on September 05, 2008, 04:44 PM
Much more interesting: stack overflow on the "save as" box. Proof of concept here:
http://security.bkis.vn/Proof-Of-Concept/PoC-XPSP2.html
Haha, wait, wasn't security one of Chrome's biggest selling points?
And does google have a scheme to automatically update their browser yet?
Quote from: brew on September 05, 2008, 05:35 PM
Quote from: iago on September 05, 2008, 04:44 PM
Much more interesting: stack overflow on the "save as" box. Proof of concept here:
http://security.bkis.vn/Proof-Of-Concept/PoC-XPSP2.html
Haha, wait, wasn't security one of Chrome's biggest selling points?
And does google have a scheme to automatically update their browser yet?
It's in beta so it can still undergo drastic improvements/changes hopefully for the better. Beta typically means "not ready for practical use" so having an auto-update feature isn't really that important a feature right now.
Quote from: Yegg on September 05, 2008, 10:17 PM
It's in beta so it can still undergo drastic improvements/changes hopefully for the better. Beta typically means "not ready for practical use" so having an auto-update feature isn't really that important a feature right now.
I was always under the impression that the term 'beta' anymore was just something labeled on a very finished product to produce more hype than it would without it.
In their comic strip, google brags about their testing method, where each of their millions of 'web crawlers' would automatically browse sites in order to more accurately reflect average usage. Obviously this approach doesn't fare very well against security holes exploited by such macilous sites as iago posted.
The bottom line is if they're to make it a browser that people would actually feel secure with, they had better get their act together and rethink their testing method. There is no reason why such a professionally made application should fall victim to something like a buffer overflow attack in this day and age. And if it's going to, they had better come prepared with an auto updater of sorts - I'm sure the millions of users won't want to keep checking google to see if a patch had been released for the newest exploit. Besides, it's better when everybody (or at the very least, almost everybody) is on the same page when it comes to software still in development, right? It makes for much more effective bug tracking if everybody's using the most recent version of the software.
Perhaps Google knows they released shit for now? I'd imagine there is a chance that by creating this hype their stock may even increase somewhat. IIRC, Apple's stock rose a nice amount when the iPhone 3g was released, despite slightly afterward many people claiming to be experiencing many issues with it (I'm not yet a victim of this, fortunately). I'm sure it will become far more advanced over time (hopefully, a short period of time). I'm not sure where it will rank against browsers such as Firefox, but no one has the right to say it doesn't at least have the potential to become the most advanced, secure browser to date. Firefox isn't even that old and become extremely popular and very advanced in quite a short period of time. Google Chrome may be the next best thing.
That's just it! They want to be the next big thing! Only problem is, I'm not sure how they're going to revolutionize browsing. There is no need for Google Chrome. The world would be just as happy without it. They're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing! This leads me to the belief that this probably is some huge publicity stunt. No publicity is bad publicity, after all. If they can make a big stink by making a half assed browser (which they have), then they've accomplished their mission. They're just being attention whores.
Not to mention the fact that just about every new 'feature' seen in Google Chrome has been in some other browser at one point or another. So revolutionary.
Quote from: brew on September 06, 2008, 02:10 AM
That's just it! They want to be the next big thing! Only problem is, I'm not sure how they're going to revolutionize browsing. There is no need for Google Chrome. The world would be just as happy without it. They're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing! This leads me to the belief that this probably is some huge publicity stunt. No publicity is bad publicity, after all. If they can make a big stink by making a half assed browser (which they have), then they've accomplished their mission. They're just being attention whores.
Not to mention the fact that just about every new 'feature' seen in Google Chrome has been in some other browser at one point or another. So revolutionary.
Are you telling me you've never created (shit), that's been previously improvised (shit) before?
I think Google wanted to see if they could pull it off, and how well they could. I'm sure they have more great ideas (which some I saw in Google Chrome) then other browsers.. It's not all about publicity.. It's probably about curiosity as well..
Quote from: Dale on September 06, 2008, 03:28 PM
Quote from: brew on September 06, 2008, 02:10 AM
That's just it! They want to be the next big thing! Only problem is, I'm not sure how they're going to revolutionize browsing. There is no need for Google Chrome. The world would be just as happy without it. They're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing! This leads me to the belief that this probably is some huge publicity stunt. No publicity is bad publicity, after all. If they can make a big stink by making a half assed browser (which they have), then they've accomplished their mission. They're just being attention whores.
Not to mention the fact that just about every new 'feature' seen in Google Chrome has been in some other browser at one point or another. So revolutionary.
Are you telling me you've never created (shit), that's been previously improvised (shit) before?
I think Google wanted to see if they could pull it off, and how well they could. I'm sure they have more great ideas (which some I saw in Google Chrome) then other browsers.. It's not all about publicity.. It's probably about curiosity as well..
I'm sure that wasn't the point brew was trying to make, though. Google made it seem as though Chrome was going to be this amazing software and would change the way we worked with the web. Not to say this won't happen, but from the looks of it this hasn't happened yet. They wouldn't have created this just out of curiosity knowing the claims they made. They believe this will ultimately be far better than all the other browsers in every aspect. That's their goal.
Quote from: Yegg on September 06, 2008, 04:04 PM
Quote from: Dale on September 06, 2008, 03:28 PM
Quote from: brew on September 06, 2008, 02:10 AM
That's just it! They want to be the next big thing! Only problem is, I'm not sure how they're going to revolutionize browsing. There is no need for Google Chrome. The world would be just as happy without it. They're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing! This leads me to the belief that this probably is some huge publicity stunt. No publicity is bad publicity, after all. If they can make a big stink by making a half assed browser (which they have), then they've accomplished their mission. They're just being attention whores.
Not to mention the fact that just about every new 'feature' seen in Google Chrome has been in some other browser at one point or another. So revolutionary.
Are you telling me you've never created (shit), that's been previously improvised (shit) before?
I think Google wanted to see if they could pull it off, and how well they could. I'm sure they have more great ideas (which some I saw in Google Chrome) then other browsers.. It's not all about publicity.. It's probably about curiosity as well..
I'm sure that wasn't the point brew was trying to make, though. Google made it seem as though Chrome was going to be this amazing software and would change the way we worked with the web. Not to say this won't happen, but from the looks of it this hasn't happened yet. They wouldn't have created this just out of curiosity knowing the claims they made. They believe this will ultimately be far better than all the other browsers in every aspect. That's their goal.
I'm pretty sure you posted above that it's in it's beta stages, did you forget that now? Most beta software blows.
Quote from: Dale on September 06, 2008, 04:09 PM
Quote from: Yegg on September 06, 2008, 04:04 PM
Quote from: Dale on September 06, 2008, 03:28 PM
Quote from: brew on September 06, 2008, 02:10 AM
That's just it! They want to be the next big thing! Only problem is, I'm not sure how they're going to revolutionize browsing. There is no need for Google Chrome. The world would be just as happy without it. They're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing! This leads me to the belief that this probably is some huge publicity stunt. No publicity is bad publicity, after all. If they can make a big stink by making a half assed browser (which they have), then they've accomplished their mission. They're just being attention whores.
Not to mention the fact that just about every new 'feature' seen in Google Chrome has been in some other browser at one point or another. So revolutionary.
Are you telling me you've never created (shit), that's been previously improvised (shit) before?
I think Google wanted to see if they could pull it off, and how well they could. I'm sure they have more great ideas (which some I saw in Google Chrome) then other browsers.. It's not all about publicity.. It's probably about curiosity as well..
I'm sure that wasn't the point brew was trying to make, though. Google made it seem as though Chrome was going to be this amazing software and would change the way we worked with the web. Not to say this won't happen, but from the looks of it this hasn't happened yet. They wouldn't have created this just out of curiosity knowing the claims they made. They believe this will ultimately be far better than all the other browsers in every aspect. That's their goal.
I'm pretty sure you posted above that it's in it's beta stages, did you forget that now? Most beta software blows.
Are you simply oblivious to everything else mentioned so far? Yes, it's in beta. brew bashed their claims on revolutionizing the way we browse the web. He explained how their ideas were not new and pretty much sucked in general. Then you made your post which seemed to show how you missed what brew was saying. Of course Chrome may be somewhat shitty now due to being in beta stages, but brew is talking about the ideas behind it. The ideas themselves are what should be revolutionary, he claims they are not. So regardless how well Chrome works, the potential of the ideas should be what makes it amazing. He claims this is not so. Just because it's in beta, doesn't mean the ideas behind it shouldn't be good ideas.
Beta simply means it's for public testing, but not yet a complete release, that's all. Don't try to assign any other definition to it. I wonder if this is going to strain the Firefox/Google team-up thing that's been going on.