Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Thread beginning with comment 354128
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A web browser is not just its rendering engine.
If it was, Chrome would have the same vulnerabilities as Safari.
Please learn to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
If it was, Chrome would have the same vulnerabilities as Safari.
Please learn to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
Chrome runs on Windows. The hacker was citing/implying that the randomization support in Windows is the reason Chrome gains that security.
Chrome on OS X would have that vulnerability, until 10.6 arrives.
RE[5]: Comment by sadyc
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 18:15
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sadyc"
Chrome runs on Windows. The hacker was citing/implying that the randomization support in Windows is the reason Chrome gains that security.
Chrome on OS X would have that vulnerability, until 10.6 arrives.
Chrome on OS X would have that vulnerability, until 10.6 arrives.
You are wrong. The reason Chrome specifically is so secure is because of the sandboxing.
Edited 2009-03-20 18:15 UTC
RE[5]: Comment by sadyc
by segedunum on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 01:27
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sadyc"
Chrome runs on Windows. The hacker was citing/implying that the randomization support in Windows is the reason Chrome gains that security.
That's one of the reasons, but as I'd indicated elsewhere in the other article it isn't just about the OS itself. This is a quote from Miller:
There are bugs in Chrome but they’re very hard to exploit. I have a Chrome vulnerability right now but I don’t know how to exploit it. It’s really hard. The’ve got that sandbox model that’s hard to get out of./
Chrome on OS X would have that vulnerability, until 10.6 arrives.
Not necessarily I'm afraid, although OS X itself might make it easier on another level. As Miller says, finding a potential entry is one thing. Turning it into something you can actually 'exploit' is a different ballgame.
RE[5]: Comment by sadyc
by MamiyaOtaru on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 04:20
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by sadyc"
RE[4]: Comment by sadyc
by bousozoku on Sat 21st Mar 2009 06:23
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by sadyc"
A web browser is not just its rendering engine.
If it was, Chrome would have the same vulnerabilities as Safari.
Please learn to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
If it was, Chrome would have the same vulnerabilities as Safari.
Please learn to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
If a vulnerability lies in WebKit, what about open source would say that Google didn't modify WebKit?
You're right that Safari isn't totally open source but that doesn't mean that the vulnerabilities aren't in the open source portions.
I don't use Safari on either platform because I don't trust Apple since they don't seem to care. Mozilla's Firefox developers care more but there are still plenty of vulnerabilities and it's completely open source and users still get hosed.





Member since:
2008-06-26
A web browser is not just its rendering engine.
If it was, Chrome would have the same vulnerabilities as Safari.
Please learn to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.