We added a pretty simple way to flip it on for people running 'test' builds of Chrome OS a while ago. (https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=214676#c4). I haven't kept up with Chrome OS enough to know if those steps are still accurate almost 3 years later. Oy, where has the time gone?!
I want to be clear that I’m very happy people can take Chromium and build something better on top of it. That’s a big part of why Chromium is open source—to encourage community contributions and third-party innovation. And I want to commend WhiteHat on releasing the source to their fork, because that allows more honest discussion and the potential for shared innovations. But I also feel compelled to stress that building a safe browser is a very hard thing to do, which is why Chrome Security has roughly 30 full-time members and Chrome Privacy has another dozen or so themselves—and none of us are ever short on work.
So, with that in mind I want to explain why I was so concerned after a fairly cursory inspection of the Aviator source code release. First, we found that the overwhelming majority of changes were superficial and branding related, but done so in a way that seriously complicates the process of tracking upstream security fixes. That's why Aviator is perennially at least two major releases behind Chrome, and ships with dozens of publicly disclosed vulnerabilities that are already fixed in the stable Chrome release. Had these branding changes been made more carefully, this simply wouldn't be a problem and Aviator would be able to pull upstream changes and benefit from the security work being done by the Chromium Project.
Unfortunately, the story gets worse when you get to the meat of the relatively small number of technical changes in Aviator. already tweeted one <http://goo.gl/GY5G2Z>, which is the most trivial RCE bug we found yesterday, but it's important to appreciate that wasn't an isolated issue. The added code doesn’t seem to have been written with a sufficient understanding of how Chrome works, or with adequate regard for security. Take this case <http://goo.gl/7wojNk> where explicit debug breaks are disabled for seemingly no reason at all. In Chrome that call is expected to safely terminate sandboxed processes in a whole slew of situations where the process cannot safely recover, but in Aviator all of those cases have now been turned into potentially exploitable vulnerabilities.
After looking at the newly introduced features, it’s also very hard to understand why any of these changes were made so invasively, and at the cost of hindering compatibility with upstream. Because, so far I just don’t see Aviator adding anything that couldn’t be done much more safely and cleanly via the normal extensions APIs, since the bulk of Aviator’s enhancements are actually provided by the already popular Disconnect extension for Chrome <http://goo.gl/IxaUx8>. And the rest of the changes appear to be covered by changing a handful of well-documented <http://goo.gl/eOi72K> default settings. And I should note you can already find detailed reccomendations <http://goo.gl/Uw1Kom> on configuring stock Chrome for the seriously privacy and security concerned user, which strike me as more effective in practice.
In the end, I really hope this criticism is taken constructively, and provides some useful context for people who want to enhance Chrome. I'm always impressed by the size and passion of the Chromium community, and blown away by the number of people who contribute to and build projects on top of our codebase. But at the same time it’s very important that care be taken in those efforts to preserve the safety of end-users, even more so when making such bold claims about security and privacy (particularly given that security is a necessary precondition for privacy). So, it's critical to get the basics right, like following secure coding practices, tracking stable branches for security fixes, and keeping local changes minimally invasive to simplify the maintenance burden.
Check out the full story here: http://bit.ly/1B7YoGu
- 2K2014 - present
- 2010 - 2014
- Adobe2002 - 2010
- Florida State UniversityComputer Science
- California State University ChicoComputer Science
Google’s Chromebooks Rule Schools As IDC Pegs Them As Top Sellers In K-12
Google's Chrome OS may be a long-term sleeper hit thanks to a growing user population among U.S. students – IDC's new figures for tablets an
Retailer-Backed Apple Pay Rival CurrentC Has Been Hacked, Testers’ Email...
MCX (Merchant Customer Exchange), the coalition of retailers including Walmart, Best Buy, Gap and others, who are backing a mobile payments
Adobe Acquires Photo-Editing Platform Aviary | TechCrunch
Aviary just announced that it has been acquired by Adobe. For those of you who haven't heard of it, Aviary offers a software development kit
The Scene At LaGuardia Airport Is Absolutely Horrifying [PHOTOS]
The snowstorm that has hit the Northeast over...
Colorado Avalanche forward Cody McLeod faces in-person hearing
Colorado Avalanche forward Cody McLeod faces in-person supplementary discipline hearing for hit of Niklas Kronwall of the Detroit Red Wings
St. Louis Blues' Maxim Lapierre suspended five games for boarding
Blues forward Maxim Lapierre has been suspended for five games, without pay, for boarding Sharks defenseman Dan Boyle.
Wille Nelson "Far Away Places" Featuring Sheryl Crow - Exclusive Track P...
You heard it here first: Willie & Sheryl Crow sing a duet.
Chromium Blog: Security rewards at Google: Two MEEELLION Dollars Later
[Cross-posted from the Google Online Security Blog] One of Google's core security principles is to engage the community, to better protect o
Introducing Project Loon: Balloon-powered Internet access
The Internet is one of the most transformative technologies of our lifetimes. But for 2 out of every 3 people on earth, a fast, affordable I
First Official Iron Man 3 Set Photo | Iron Man | News | Marvel.com
The next film in the Iron Man saga has begun production, and we've got the first official photo from the set!