Google Chrome 28.0.1500.72 showing many "Aw Snap" pages

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by HAN, Jul 19, 2013.

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

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    USA
    I see a few around the web are getting them too. After some investigation, Google apparently had an issue with the previous version coughing up Aw Snaps and made a change to fix them. They thought it was fixed and pushed out .72. Well, for me, it has not helped. If anything, it's worse.

    I've seen several workarounds listed but none worked for me. So I ventured into the land of betas and so far, 30.0.1568.2 is working for me. (I'm XP Pro SP3.)

    Anyone else having issues??
     
  2. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
  3. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    While disabling the sandbox isn't going to kill you, it's also very stupid (and would disable the sandbox for Flash) and not necessarily going to solve anything. So instead of disabling a critical security feature that has an effect on one of the most popularly exploited programs.... (perhaps people should stop taking security advice from an IT guy who doesn't believe in security?)

    There are various things you can try to do. If this is in fact an issue with the sandbox, it means something is violating it, and it's probably a third party library (like realtime player).

    One quick fix is to try the Beta channel. Often fixes hit there first.

    Another would be to disable all extensions and plugins, and then see if the problem occurs. You can then turn the plugins back on step by step.

    If you use any flags in Chrome://flags you should disable them, try "Reset to default" and relaunch the browser.

    You can also try adding (in about flags)

    Check for known conflicts with 3rd party modules. Windows
    Enables a background check that warns you when a software incompatibility is detected (ie. 3rd party modules that crash the browser). #conflicting-modules-check

    A significant number of 'aw snap' crashes are due to third party drivers. Considering this is a security forum I wouldn't be surprised if one of your security programs is doing it. If you use EMET don't use it to protect Chrome. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=260149 That is likely the culprit.

    edit: You can also try chrome://crashes/
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2013
  4. Pinga

    Pinga Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Posts:
    1,420
    Location:
    Europe
  5. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Posts:
    2,016
    Location:
    North America
    Disabling the sandbox is about as stupid as it gets. Most of my "Aw Snaps" came from Flash..which is what has been causing Firefox to die frequently as of late as well. Flash seems to be going through another of its stupid phases again. That doesn't mean it's the only cause of course, but Flash is far too often a culprit.
     
  6. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=revision&revision=209889

    Honestly, it's almost always a third party that screws it up. Disabling everything and seeing if it goes away is generally the quickest and safest fix.
     
  7. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    I am on the beta channel and have not experienced many crashes when the beta was on v28. Maybe you should try the beta channel and see if that solves the problem for you.
     
  8. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    No it's not as stupid as it gets. Putting your hand in a wood chipper is more stupid, for example. There's no point in a security mechanism if you cannot use the product, now is there? A sandboxing mechanism that crashes the browser is useless. NOT related to Flash.

    Mrk
     
  9. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    I think I had more after moving the cache back to RAM disk using symbolic links after they kindly removed manual registry policies. No, I don't have gpedit.msc on Windows 7 64-bit Home Premium. Anyways, they're temporary, so I don't really care.
     
  10. subhrobhandari

    subhrobhandari Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    708
    I am using Chromium latest 64Bit, and I am noticing aw snap pages only when there's a shortage of memory and in my case its only due to flash.
     
  11. tlu

    tlu Guest

  12. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Thanks! BTW, when it comes to script blocking, it's quite simple really.
    Mrk
     
  13. tlu

    tlu Guest

    You mean, without an extension? Yes, it is via the settings menu if you want to block scripting for a specific site/domain. But it's not if you want to allow scripting for a site but block 3rd party scripts.
     
  14. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    It is related to Flash, even if the crash isn't. If you disable the sandbox Flash runs unsandboxed, as well as the renderer. While you're very unlikely to run into a renderer exploit that assumes no sandbox, you're not unlikely to run into a flash exploit.

    Rather than trying to *solve* the issue, by finding the cause of the sandbox violation, or even suggesting users check chrome://crashes you instead tell them to turn off a somewhat critical security feature.

    Anyone having this issue, it's probably a very simple fix, try the steps in my post before you resort to something as silly as disabling the sandbox.
     
  15. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    No I meant any extension will do. But never mind. Semantics.
    I will test the new extension, see what gives there.
    Mrk
     
  16. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    NotScript and ScriptSafe are no replacements for something like NoScript.

    in my tests with them, they were indeed wonky.
    there are a few threads here at Wilders as to why those are not very good.

    they block sometimes, but not always.
    due to Chrome API or some damn thing.

    i don't use either of them because of this failing.
    ----
    edit:
    Ghostery seems to be better on Firefox as well.
    when i visit P Bay, Ghostery blocks the redirect page using firefox.
    Chrome with Ghostery does not block the redirect.

    so addons like NoSctipt and Ghostery seems to work much better in Firefox.

    but Chrome has a sandbox and Untrusted Integrity levels for tabs.

    pick your poison. ;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2013
  17. tlu

    tlu Guest

    Agreed. However, I would say that ScriptSafe blocks "most of the time", not "sometimes". ;)
     
  18. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    hahaha! :D

    right you are.

    unfortunately, "most of the times" just don't cut it when it comes to privacy or security. :p
     
  19. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,984
    Location:
    Canada
    You would recommend not using EMET at all to protect Chrome? I ask because from that link can be seen:

    Actually I've found even with SEHOP enabled along with all other protections, Chrome crashes only sometimes. Even so, I've disabled SEHOP just to play it safe. BTW, it seems to be heavy Flash content that crashes Chrome in my case.
     
  20. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Chrome already supports the important mitigation techniques in EMET, so while you may benefit from the anti-ROP mitigation, I don't consider it necessary, nor worth the instability.

    I personally have not had issues, but some people apparently have.
     
  21. wat0114

    wat0114 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,984
    Location:
    Canada
    Okay I see. Thanks!
     
  22. tlu

    tlu Guest

    re: ScriptSafe

    I'm just testing the following combination: Blocking JS by default in the Chrome settings and selecting "Allow" as the default mode in the ScriptSafe general settings while leaving the Privacy Settings as they are.

    Advantages:
    • Blocking JS is now reliable.
    • If you allow JS through the button in the Omnibar, 3rd party scripts from sites labelled as "Unwanted Content" and/or in the Blacklist are (well, should be) still blocked by ScriptSafe

    Disadvantages:
    • Temporarily allowing JS for a site is not possible.
    • If you allow JS for a site you have to reload it manually.

    If you want to take back allowing JS for a site you can do this through the website permissions icon in the omnibox.

    Has anyone tried that solution?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 27, 2013
  23. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    just tried ScriptSafe.

    pages load more slowly with it than without it. :blink:
     
  24. tlu

    tlu Guest

    I don't have that impression ...

    Did you chose Allow or Block as your default mode?
     
  25. guest

    guest Guest

    How come? o_O Well, ScriptSafe still doesn't play nice with click-to-play option though. At first I tried to set the unwanted content mode to relaxed and disabled the antisocial mode. It worked, but... then the problem is back a while later. Can't use it for now. :'(

    As to the original question, nope. Never had that problem as far as I can tell.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.