Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Mar 2012 09:43 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Google "As day one of the annual Pwn2Own hacker contest wound down on Wednesday, no browser suffered more abuse than Google Chrome, which was felled by an attack exploiting a previously unknown vulnerability in the most up-to-date version. Combined with a separate contest Google sponsored a few feet away, it was the second zero-day attack visited on Chrome in a span of a few hours." Google fixed the issue within 24 hours.
Thread beginning with comment 510107
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

MS has to regression test everything against all of the dependencies in Windows and a host of third part solutions that depend on IE.

Chrome, being not part of any operating system anyone really cares about ( sorry Chrome OS), doesn't have to do that much and can roll out the updates and bugfixes much faster.

Reply Score: 3

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

I always said Microsoft's ploy of integrating IE into Windows would hamper evolution of the browser.

Certainly goes against their argument that it was a "requirement" and "natural evolution" of Windows rather than a under-handed anti-competitive action.

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, to be fair to Microsoft, they weren't very good at modularizing their code in the 90's. They were in the processes of spagetti-izing the kernel, so it probably seemed natural to sprinkle the parmesan cheese of IE in there as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3

bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Well to be fair at the time we are speaking of even a single MP3 could have taken a couple of hours thanks to the crappy dialup speeds and by integrating MSHTML.DLL they were able to allow companies to completely abandon their old help file systems for simple HTML pages that shaved several Mb off of software.

Honestly the only thing I'd argue that should have gotten them busted under antitrust was the same thing that Intel should be busted for, and that's the backroom deals with OEMs. We can see what a negative affect it had on the market in the Intel case, simply by looking at any retail shop and seeing how many AMD machines there are now where before there were none, but part of the reason you can't see the same with MSFT is that nobody dared try with the OEM deals. BeOS was PPC up until it was too late, Linux was (I'd argue still is) too CLI heavy, and Apple never cared for the low end markets.

But if you think it was MSFT bundling IE that killed Netscape then obviously you were never a users of their product, particularly Netscape 4. Here is my impression of NS 4 on Win9X: "Oh good, its installed. Now I'll just go to my favorite web.../browser crashed/..huh. Well maybe it just don't like that site. No matter i have the whole web at my fingertips I'll just go to one of the.../browser hangs/...huh. Well if at first you don't succeed, I'll just check my webmail and then.../browser BSODs entire system/ *&^%*&^*^%!"

IE won not because of bundling, or that it was better, or even because it was good, but because the other browser company decided to release a version that was the equivalent to a punch in the face, yes it was THAT bad. Heck how do you think MS Office came to dominate? it was because the old king of the hill WordPerfect released a badly ported DOS version as their Windows version that was more likely to corrupt files or hang the system than it was to actually run. Honestly most of MSFT's fortune came from others being idiots, Kildall blowing off IBM, JLG sticking BeOS with the more expensive PPC CPU, the Pepsi guy at Apple letting the OS fall behind while releasing a ton of overpriced overlapping models so nobody knew what was what, idiots all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

MS has to regression test everything against all of the dependencies in Windows and a host of third part solutions that depend on IE.

Chrome, being not part of any operating system anyone really cares about ( sorry Chrome OS), doesn't have to do that much and can roll out the updates and bugfixes much faster.


Amazing how you made it sound so easy to support multiple platforms and oh soo difficult to test on only 1 platform! And the tech ignorant quickly gave you plusses! ;)

Congrats!

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Windows is not a single platform, and the interactions with the rest of the system are more complex because its built in, and its easy for them to screw up a big customer with a bug fix. Its happened in the past, wouldn't be surprised if it happens again.

I would assume that Chome's tests are less dependant on the other pieces of software installed, and less likely to cause problems for other pieces of software.

Reply Parent Score: 2