7141460
story
Comments: 214 +- Technology: MS Finds Security Flaw In Google Chrome Frame on Friday November 20, @05:40AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicie.gif); width:64px; height:64px;
msie
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsecurity.gif); width:59px; height:78px;
security
Christmas Shopping writes with this excerpt from Kaspersky Labs' threatpost: "Back in September, when Google launched the Google Chome Frame plug-in for Internet Explorer users, Microsoft immediately warned that the move would increase the attack surface and make IE users less secure. Now comes word that a security researcher in the Microsoft Vulnerability Research (MSVR) has discovered a 'high risk' security vulnerability that could allow an attacker to bypass cross-origin protections."
"Google has hurried out a patch," he adds.
Related Stories
Submission: MS Finds Security Flaw in Google Chrome Frame by Anonymous Coward
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Dude (Score:5, Funny)
MS Finds Security Flaw In Google Chrome Frame
Timothy, you owe me a new Transformers t-shirt. I just spat coffee all over myself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you haven't been paying much attention. Billy Rios has discovered the GIFAR problem [hackaday.com] with Java. Of course they're only looking at things that affect their software, in much the same way that Google doesn't go looking for software bugs in Microsoft products.
Why is it so surprising that security researchers employed by a company only look at that company's software, and aren't credited in the security patch reports for just doing their jobs?
Re:Dude (Score:4, Interesting)
> in much the same way that Google doesn't go looking for software bugs in Microsoft products.
You need to keep a closer eye on Microsoft bulletins, it actually happens regularly.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:microsoft.com+Google+intitle:"Microsoft+Security+Bulletin" [google.com]
Parent
At least they patched it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At least they patched it (Score:5, Informative)
Patch Tuesday is the fault of the big corporate customers, who demanded that patches be released on a schedule so they had more time to plan around testing and rolling them out.
I don't like it either, but it's not like it's something MS made up just to piss us off, they're doing exactly what their customers have asked for.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't vendors implement their own Patch Tuesdays? That is, Microsoft would release patches any time, and large vendors would simply allow them to accrue until their internal "Patch Tuesday" came around, at which time they'd test and apply the patches.
Delayed full disclosure (Score:4, Informative)
Why can't vendors implement their own Patch Tuesdays? That is, Microsoft would release patches any time, and large vendors would simply allow them to accrue until their internal "Patch Tuesday" came around, at which time they'd test and apply the patches.
The vulnerability that the patch fixes is often disclosed along with the patch. So by the time the vulnerability becomes public, the script kiddies are likely already exploiting the vulnerability against targets with their own patch schedules.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:At least they patched it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah it would be much better if the patches came out like they do for Firefox so that every other time you start Firefox you have to navigate an update dialog!
Parent
Re:At least they patched it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Binaries installed or modified outside the packaging system is a security flaw, not to mention impossible to maintain. Everytime Firefox opens an update dialog, it is effectively asking me to take a shitload on my Linux installation... and kill a kitten.
Re:At least they patched it (Score:5, Funny)
Not on your Linux installation, but in your own home directory. Unless you run as root. If you do run Firefox as root, then you should not worry about kittens killed when firefox is updated. You kill them every second spend in your X session.
Parent
Re:At least they patched it (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:At least they patched it (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I imagine 90% of your updates come from noscript. The author essentially just releases updates every few days just so that he can drive up views to his site and try to make money from it.
I guess that's his right, but it's annoying as hell and it's basically just made me stop updating noscript.
Re: (Score:2)
Me, I run Adblock alone and dont bother with noscript, its more trouble than its worth...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use noscript
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And not wait another week until it's patch-Tuesday.
How do you know exactly when the bug was first reported to Google? For all you know, they may have sat on the problem for a month.
It seems that they did batch the updates together, because this update to version 4.0.245.1 [blogspot.com] fixes 9 different issues.
This is possible? (Score:3, Funny)
Awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
So quick to point out mistakes in others software, but so slow to fix your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Blærg. Finding vulnerabalities is a good thing. Fixing them is even better.
Microsoft just did a good thing. Google did too. The world just became a slightly better place.
If we just fixed the rest of the softwarebugs, ended world hunger, fixed the environment and I got together with my ex (whom I still a miss even a year afterwards..I'm such a f***ing loser) the world be kinda ok.
Smile :)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem, IE and Windows has historically required numerous patches, it would be nice if MS would do better to get their software fixed first. Finding flaws in someone else's software is not something I want to see when they don't really have their own house in order yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding flaws in someone else's software is not something I want to see
I don't think you really believe that. Personally, I'd value the published discovery of a flaw not matter who the discoverer is.
They were right (Score:4, Insightful)
DOuble whammy from Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only does this unholy merge of browsers increase the surface area for attack (though the idea of someone from Microsoft complaining about that is highly ironic), but like other Google software it brings in the Google updater.
For example, FTA: "All users should be updated automatically,"
Google updater allows a web page to push an update on you without any notification. I don't know what the security restrictions on that are, but I can't see what advantage that has over providing a separate update program that would justify the risks.
Google seems to be in the same state of denial about secure design that Microsoft was in in 1997. Let's hope they catch on... Microsoft really never has recovered from that era.
This is just a temporary inconvenience (Score:2, Funny)
Breaking news! (Score:5, Funny)
This story should have been titled... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This story should have been titled... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, congrats man... changing "MS finds security flaw in Google Chrome Frame" to "Microsoft security researcher confirms advantages of open source transparency" is a spin worthy of Fox News. You might have a future in public relations. :)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardly, they helped another company secure its product. Everybody wins!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, since the only reason Google had to create this code in the first place is because Microsoft wouldn't step up to the plate. You can bet that this whole situation is an embarrassment to Microsoft; it took another company to patch their software to work correctly, when they should have been able to do it themselves. Some egos were bruised in the process, and you can be damn well sure that there's a team willing to do everything they can to discredit Googles achievement.
So while I commend Microsoft on
Re:Expected (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, since the only reason Google had to create this code in the first place is because Microsoft wouldn't step up to the plate.
Is this a comment about HTML5 support? The standard isn't even established yet so it seems irresponsible for web designers to use that format for their entire framework, and premature to consider it a must-have for web browsers. IE9 will support it, I believe, though MS balked at supporting a non-final language.
I think this is all just an excuse for Google to turn up its nose at Microsoft by making them look like they're dragging their heels. It's a very Google ideal to embrace beta and subject users to technologies while they're still only half baked. Microsoft releases beta software too, but with warnings not to use the software in production. HTML5 is a good example of this difference of philosophy, and certainly so is this Chrome Frame plugin which is essentially a sloppy man-in-the-middle attack vector. It's like one of those obnoxious browser toolbars that acts as an intermediary to hijack all your search queries.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess part of it is css support
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I very seriously doubt that they did this just to turn their collective nose up at Microsoft. Might it be that they want a more usable browser, so they get more eyes on their own products?
Wouldn't you consider the fast pace of development a reason to at least support the most obvious standards. If our brows
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I very seriously doubt that they did this just to turn their collective nose up at Microsoft. Might it be that they want a more usable browser, so they get more eyes on their own products?
Google is shoehorning their own browser into their competitor's browser. This is the equivalent of Burger King selling their hamburgers inside a McDonalds restaurant. It's a very drastic move that goes too far in my opinion.
Wouldn't you consider the fast pace of development a reason to at least support the most obvious standards. If our browsers wait for the final standards, that will slow the development process down. Now before you come flaming back at me, I'm not saying everything should be released bleeding edge, but there has to be some place in the middle that could be effective. You have to admit, IE hasn't had a stellar record of being a progressive, or even current browser.
You're right that standards should be backed, but they're not standards until they are finalized. A standard means something that will not be changed, but if it's not finalized it could change at any minute. I don't think "being progressive" should be a priority of any web browser -
Re:Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Web designers have, for years, been depending on functionality that isn't even on any kind of standards track, much less maturely standardized. We call it Flash(and to a lesser extent other "rich content" plugins; but mostly Flash). Web designers have, frequently, depended on it for all kinds of things, it is often considered a must-have for web browsers, and is every bit as ghastly, if not considerably more so, in implementation.
By comparison, HTML5 is positively civilized. Chrome Frame is basically just an "HTML 5 Player" plugin, whose necessity will hopefully evaporate over time. It is, certainly, a kludge; but there are presently no alternatives to that. You can either give up broad swaths of web application features entirely, and deal with the oh-so-standard world of native application development; or base your webapp features on one or more plugins(flash, java, silverlight, etc.), or you can use HTML5 stuff.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You do realize that ActiveX is an industry standard, supported by the Open Group (you now, the same people that standardized X Windows).
http://www.opengroup.org/pubs/catalog/ax01.htm [opengroup.org]
Mod Parent Up, Grandparent Down (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely true. As a web-developer, let me clue you (the grandparent) in... ASP is a server side programming language used to create HTML based web pages on the fly. It is exactly the same kind of technology as PHP... it's on the server and, and the client has no knowledge of it. All it gets is HTML, and it doesn't care whether it was static or created by PHP or ASP on the fly.
And just to add to the chorus, I have viewed many a webpage that was generated b
Re:Expected (Score:4, Insightful)
And Google doesn't have to pay them a cent. :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh. If so, it's a good reason to use Google Chrome Frame. A program that has an active bug-finding team is more trustworthy than one where bugs and security holes are hushed up.
However, I don't think Microsoft would set out to help their competitor in this way.
Re:Expected (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing too. If competitors spent more time actively looking for bugs in each others' software instead of paying their marketroids to spread FUD, everyone would be better off.
Parent
Re:Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
I am willing to bet good money that Microsoft formed a team responsible for finding bugs in Google frame just to discredit them.
In that case, why didn't Microsoft loudly announce it to the world and shame Google?
Instead, they quietly reported it to Google so that they could fix the problem. Once the bug was fixed, Google acknowledged the security researcher who discovered the bug. This is exactly how the system is supposed to work so that everybody wins - we get safer software, Google doesn't have to "hurry out a patch" (without proper testing) and Microsoft gets the credit for the discovery. The bug gets fixed without tipping off the malware writers.
And why does everybody act so responsibly? Because next time it might be a Google employee that finds a bug in Microsoft's products. Microsoft would like to be afforded the same courtesy. Similarly, if Google didn't acknowledge Microsoft, then the next security researcher who finds a bug in Chrome may decide to get their credit by going public rather than following protocol. Remember that this public recognition is the same as an academic being published in a journal. It is how they build their reputation, and ultimately how they will get future employment.
Parent
Re:Expected (Score:5, Insightful)
You had me right up until "just to discredit them".
Microsoft clearly was concerned that Frame would add to the possible attack vectors into IE. They've certainly said as much. And that is a valid concern, frankly. Due to that concern, they had their research team test for security vulnerabilities in Frame, obviously with particular focus on ones that could compromise a Windows system.
And, whaddya know, they found one.
Now, if they were trying to discredit Google, the first place they'd go is (MS)NBC and put out headlines "Google Chrome Frame Has a security breach! Look at those losers!"
Instead, we see an announcement from Google that they have a patch for the defect, and acknowledging Microsoft as having found the bug and reported it to them.
Sounds to me like Microsoft was acting out of enlightened self-interest, and is demonstrating good team-playing skills by telling Google about it in enough detail for Google to come out with a fast fix.
Kudos to Microsoft for extending their security research beyond their own software and to external sources they might consider a threat. Further kudos to Microsoft for reporting the issue to Google with enough detail to make a fix possible, without exposing it to the black hats so this never became a zero-day attack.
Kudos to Google for getting a fix out there quickly. Further kudos to Google for having the respect to acknowledge Microsoft's contribution.
I'd say this is a perfect example of vendors being good players in the security arena, and respectful competitors.
Parent
Shut up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Shut up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. For once, this case was conducted in a civilized manner, much to my own surprise. Yes, I admit I am surprised, because I expected a slightly different modus operandi from a company like Microsoft, with a uber-competitive, testosterone-saturated corporate culture. This, for me, more than any other, is a proof that Microsoft is changing.
Parent