Google Chrome's security

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by gkweb, Aug 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    From personal experience, bugs in the Firefox trunk typically take ages to fix, with the devs constantly requesting narrowing down which checkin in which hourly build caused the bug, and even then debugging takes a damn long while. Especially bugs filed by people who're not savvy enough to provide test cases for the devs.

    The longest I've waited for a bugfix in the Chrome trunk to date, by comparison, is 1.5 weeks. I'm not saying that this is sure-fire evidence for messy code in Fx, but it certainly does reinforce my opinion of it.
     
  2. Dregg Heda

    Dregg Heda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Does this switch exist in Iron and where is it?
     
  3. wrongway67

    wrongway67 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    45
    Create a shortcut for Iron and in the Properties tab edit the Target field by appending --safe-plugins to the path.

    "C:\Program Files\SRWare Iron\iron.exe" --safe-plugins
     
  4. Dregg Heda

    Dregg Heda Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Posts:
    830
    Thanks Wrongway!
     
  5. Eirik

    Eirik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Posts:
    544
    Location:
    Chantilly, Virginia
    Question: does Chrome or IE8 regulate inter-process communications?

    One rationale for separating tabs into different processes is to provide compartmentalization so as to fortify the integrity and confidentiality of any one tab relative to the other active tabs in the browser. When tabs exist within the same process, only the browser should regulate communications among active tabs, practically speaking (a security app trying to do so would be problematic). With separate tabs, however, what regulates or blocks inter-process communications (my questions/scope is somewhat OS independent, meaning browsers must cope with the facility limitations of XP)?

    Bear in mind, this is all theoretical. I do not intend for my question to imply this issue is in the top 10 concerns for browser security TODAY.

    Cheers,

    Eirik
     
  6. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    As said from a software architects point, the first two paragraphs address my issues, a messy architecture is something different than messy code. I admitted to have not done code sampling, so can not say anything about messy code. I am talking about circumstancial evidence (like Eice for instance also does).

    I said I did not bother, agree it sounds ignorant when you mention reverse engineering for Free Libre Open Source, still that can be a lazy way to look at it, because some reverse engineering tools have graphic visualisations of the reverse engineered code structure.
     
  7. Habakuck

    Habakuck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    544
    Will this switch really put all plugins into the sandbox? Also the adobe flash player? That would be awesome!

    So will the switch for incognito and safe plugin this one:

    ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2009
  8. wrongway67

    wrongway67 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    45
    yes (see the attachment)
    affirmative :thumb:
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Habakuck

    Habakuck Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Posts:
    544
    WOW! That ist really cool! So i finally found a possibility for running a "sandboxed" browser under Win7 64 bit ?!

    That is really good!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.