Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Internet Explorer Technology

Chrome Apes IE8, Adds Clickjacking, XSS Defenses 90

Posted by timothy from the damn-dirty-apes dept.
CWmike writes "Google has announced that it added several new security features to Chrome 4, including two security measures first popularized (some later shot down as having 'zero impact') by rival Microsoft's IE8 last year. The newest 'stable' build of Chrome includes five security additions that target Web developers who want to build more secure sites, said Adam Barth, a software engineer on the Chrome team. The two aped from IE include 'X-Frame-Options'" a security feature that helps sites defend against 'clickjacking' attacks, and cross-site scripting protection.'"In Google Chrome 4, we've added an experimental feature to help mitigate one form of XSS [cross-site scripting], reflective XSS,' Barth said. 'The XSS filter checks whether a script that's about to run on a Web page is also present in the request that fetched that Web page. If the script is present in the request, that's a strong indication that the Web server might have been tricked into reflecting the script.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome Apes IE8, Adds Clickjacking, XSS Defenses More

Chrome Apes IE8, Adds Clickjacking, XSS Defenses

Comments Filter:

  • Thanks (Score:1)

    by iamapizza ( 1312801 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @04:16AM (#30946946)
    Thanks for adding the security features to Chrome, developers at Google. That is all.

  • Chrome Apes? Moronic Monkies? (Score:3, Funny)

    by syousef ( 465911 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @04:17AM (#30946958) Journal

    Anyone else getting flashbacks from Planet of the Apes?

    Is that the new code name for the next version of Chrome? Ubuntu Panhandling Panda, now featuring Chrome Apes! Download now! Steve Balmer your Monkey Boy days are numbered, so dance while you can, it's the year of the Google Desktop.

  • Gayfield Penishands - The Movie! Soon at IMDB.com (Score:-1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @04:32AM (#30947024)

    G4yfield P3nishands is a touching film about a 29 year old g4y emo man, with long p3nises for fingers. In the tradition of Edward scissorhands, we bring you:

    G4yfield P3nishands

    Watch as G4yfield stumbles around in his world where his p3nis fingers get him in all sorts of michief. With every simple sneeze, volcanic mayonnayse storms erupt.

    Will G4yfield P3nishands live a fruitful life? Is he to find love?

  • security by obscurity (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @04:41AM (#30947060)

    security by obscurity... just imagine how many developers will be baffled by this behavior, spending hours trying to find out what is wrong with their code...

  • but what about jQuery? (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @04:47AM (#30947090)

    I'm interested into how this ties in with commonly used external scripts, such as the jQuery and Yui frameworks which are commonly fetched from their respective servers, rather than hosted locally on the server of the website, so they're cached etc.

  • Cross-site scripting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by commlinx ( 1068272 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @04:58AM (#30947138) Homepage Journal

    Recently I starting doing a bit of web development after being out of the loop for a while. I was working on a project and it was convenient to have the XHTML / JS running on my development machine while doing a few AJAX calls to my development server. After it failed at first I found I could add Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * to the HTTP header to allow cross-site access.

    It made we wonder if you wanted to exploit cross-site vulnerabilities couldn't you setup a proxy in the middle that returned information from the original site but added that to the header? Anyway just got me wondering and maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment on it.

  • Stay classy /. (Score:-1, Flamebait)

    by WiiVault ( 1039946 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @05:02AM (#30947156)
    A few potentially good ideas somehow changes a decade of standards abuse and generally shitty security? I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security. Your welcome MS drones.

    • Moderation abuse 101 (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by WiiVault ( 1039946 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @05:12AM (#30947200)
      Off topic? The summary is pure troll.

      • Re:Moderation abuse 101 (Score:0)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @07:14AM (#30947676)

        Hi

        I am an Anonymous Coward / troll and I would like to apply for the position of new Slashdot meme creator.
        I have many valuable ideas that regular members will find amusing and informative. My first idea is the 'I just farted' meme in which a user adds a semi-useful comment onto a discussion and then concludes with "BTW, I just farted." Hilarious!

        I hope this meets with your approval.

        BTW, I just farted.

        Regards

        AC/t

    • Re:Stay classy /. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 1s44c ( 552956 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @07:05AM (#30947642)

      I hope the submitter realized that the only reason MS even bothered with any of this is thanks to them getting an ass pounding over the last few years for not giving a shit about security. Your welcome MS drones.

      MS have never got the 'ass pounding' their security record has earned. If the security problems they cause cost them just 1% of what they cost their customers they would be bankrupt fairly quickly.

      Software is weird, where else would you not be responsible for the faults in the products you sell?

      • Re:Stay classy /. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:49AM (#30948162)

        Because if you were, you probably wouldn't be able to purchase the software as it'd be seriously more expansive than it is today.

      • Re:Stay classy /. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kevin Stevens ( 227724 ) <kevstevNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 29, 2010 @10:42AM (#30949158)

        Your house is seriously insecure, even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass, you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two. Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.

        When our houses get robbed, we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal. Yet when our computers are hacked, we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.

        I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards, particularly on consumer desktops. It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software, but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems, and if it wasn't for very intelligent, very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software, we wouldn't have to worry at all. Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window, and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.

        I just don't understand this.

        • Re:Stay classy /. (Score:2)

          by mister_playboy ( 1474163 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @10:55AM (#30949346)

          Breaking into a house requires the criminal to be at the house physically and people understand that. Breaking into a computer can take place from virtually anywhere and that seems much more abstract. Since most people don't understand exactly what happened to allow the criminal access, they place the blame with someone who they assume does understand, the software manufacturer.

          If a little kid gets hurt and you try to comfort them, they often get angry at you, at least briefly. Same basic idea.

        • Re:Stay classy /. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by 10101001 10101001 ( 732688 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @11:13AM (#30949580) Journal

          Your house is seriously insecure, even if you have a steel door and have window panes are made of bullet-proof glass, you probably live in a stick frame building where a drill and a sawz-all can gain me access to the interior in an hour or two. Yet no one seems to get excited about the insecurity of our houses.

          In large part because, as you point out, it's impossible to make a house physically secure (although security guards can hypothetically do a good job). Similarly, it's impossible to make a computer physically secure (after all, it's in a house or building and those security guards still aren't perfect). Meanwhile, software, being a virtual good, can actually provide absolute security within the confines of the computer that runs it being physically secure. Hence, there's a higher standard held on software.

          When our houses get robbed, we recognize that the wrongdoing is being done by the criminal. Yet when our computers are hacked, we place the wrongdoing on the provider of the software.

          No. In both situations, the wrongdoers are the criminals. The issue comes to the point, really, of whether any blame can be put upon the constructor of your house (or its parts) and the constructor of your computer (or its parts). For homes, if someone sold a lock that, as sold, should be reasonably able to stop being hacksawed through was in fact hacksawed through, you'd still have reason to blame the lock maker. Similarly, software that is clearly defective against what it reasonably should block would leave blame upon the software maker. The issue, then, is merely that Microsoft (and most software makers) regularly admit their software is faulty (the need for Windows Update). The only real thing left, then, is to point out that Microsoft has such a poor reputation, no person should reasonably expect their software to be secure; if that's your position, I agree that blame is being badly cast on Microsoft.

          I have never really understood why software is held to such lofty standards, particularly on consumer desktops. It would be one thing if file sharing of your entire filesystem was enabled by default in typical software, but lets be real- hacks these days require really clever methods to exploit systems, and if it wasn't for very intelligent, very dedicated people constantly pounding and poking our software, we wouldn't have to worry at all. Yet an uneducated teenager can break into a house in a few minutes with little more than a stick to break a window, and we seem to all go about our day without any outrage at all.

          Again, software can be actually made secure. Most the "easy" exploits have been fixed because they are actually fixable. There's nothing you can do to prevent a teenager from being able to break into a house (well, not legally, anyways); you can in many states/areas shoot the teenager after they enter. The comparison is rather apple and oranges.

        • Re:Stay classy /. (Score:1)

          by forgottenusername ( 1495209 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @02:29PM (#30952808)

          Locking your front door and window is merely a deterrent to your fairly normal, average civilized person. It's illusionary security, a social construct that says "hey, this is private, keep out". Same thing with passwords on accounts and firewalls.

          Software is held to lofty standards because people don't understand it and blindly have faith in OS vendors, AV vendors etc to magically keep them safe. So when those software companies fail to protect them from threats they don't even really understand they get angry as only ignorant people who got duped can get ;)

  • Powerful M2TS Converter (Score:-1, Troll)

    by johnismile ( 1732642 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @05:14AM (#30947208)
    Hi, do you want to convert your M2TS files created by your Sony Camcorder and enjoy them on your Mobile Phone? With this powerful M2TS Converter [m2tsconverterreviews.com] to convert m2ts to mp4 [m2tsconverterreviews.com] Really nice software, just have a try now.

  • Chrome Apes IE8, Adds Clickjacking, XSS (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @05:53AM (#30947380) Homepage Journal

    Defenses

    I like how Slashdot renders that headline.

  • Dumb article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Undead Waffle ( 1447615 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @05:55AM (#30947388)

    Oh my god Chrome is copying IE by supporting for the http header X-Frame-Options that Microsoft wants web developers to start using. Don't they know you're supposed to invent your own browser-specific variation of what your opponent implements?

    I also like how they mention Chrome added 5 security features but they only cover the 2 that are already in IE.

    It's nice that all of the browsers are adding security features but can we cover one of them without focusing on who did what first?

    • Re:Dumb article (Score:0, Troll)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @07:05AM (#30947644)

      It's nice that all of the browsers are adding security features but can we cover one of them without focusing on who did what first?

      No. The lineage of any technology is always mentioned.

      Why is it a problem for you?

      It's actually kind of funny that Google releases something that MS initially did: Google copies Microsoft. Google is showing no imagination. First their own OS, Browser and now security features that MS originally put in their browser. What's this with Google?

      Did I mention that Microsoft were the first to put these needed security features? Of course when they did it, it wasn't needed, but apparently, their Goodness Google thought differently.

      Just what are the Microsoft haters going to do?

  • Protection on other browsers (Score:5, Informative)

    by pmontra ( 738736 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @06:31AM (#30947514) Homepage
    This post [hackademix.net] of NoScript's author Giorgio Maone dates back to one year ago and goes into the details of X-Frame-Options. His point seems to be that if you have JavaScript enabled, there are well-known ways [wikipedia.org] to achieve the same result, unless you use IE (they can be circumvented). If you don't have JS enabled, NoScript on Firefox is already giving you the same degree of protection. Anyway (this is me) adding that level of protection by default on all browsers looks a nice thing to have.

  • Ads (Score:3, Funny)

    by 1s44c ( 552956 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @06:58AM (#30947622)

    If Chrome can't block ads it's not ready for the internet. It doesn't matter what else it does and doesn't do, blocking stupid flashing graphics is the main function of web browsers these days.

  • ...when Google goes ahead, tracks your every move, and sells it to the same crooks anyway?

    (Not trolling here. As far as I heard, Google does track everything. And as far as I know, Google does sell that information to advertisers as its main business. Finally, as far as I know, those advertisers include all those spamming crooks and their friends.)

  • Chromium blog post on the new security features (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:28AM (#30947996)
    Chromium blog post on the new security features [chromium.org], some of which are rather interesting

  • bit34 (Score:-1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:41AM (#30948110)
    formed his own company a 2 I know i7 sux0rs, survey which [idge.net] things 1n YOU CAN. WHEN THE

  • Off topic: In regards to the facebook icon... (Score:0, Offtopic)

    by Antiocheian ( 859870 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @08:45AM (#30948140) Journal

    ... and the twitter icon as well, appearing on every story and even on my own journal:

    fuck off Slashdot.

  • Can anyone tell me whether it finally installs in 'program files', on Windows XP? I haven't been able to find a way with the previous versions, and this is my only hurdle to installing it on my work PC due to the anti-virus rules.

  • No thanks, no more Chrome for me. (Score:2)

    by cheros ( 223479 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @12:19PM (#30950588)

    I stopped using Chrome. It comes from a supplier that sees privacy as a problem, and I don't feel I have enough control over what it does with the information it gains from my surfing - that's also why I don't use Google DNS. I also have no idea how to switch the "referrer" information off (in FF that's quite easy).

    So, personally I don't give a damn what Chrome (or any other Google app) does. I prefer FF, even when I switch to OSX later this year (yes, I'm switching control freaks :-))..

  • That's good, but work on usability too please (Score:2)

    by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @02:33PM (#30952870)
    Improving security is great, but they really need to keep working on usability as well! I just installed Chrome for the first time yesterday and have been playing around with it. It seems pretty speedy but the UI is a bit weird.

    The lack of a title bar seems kind of weird. I don't know what they were going for with that, but it's the only window on my entire machine and it stands out, and not in a good way. At one point i tried adding a new tab while waiting for visual studio to start a debug session, and the UI hung up for a little bit, and for a few brief seconds Chrome acquired a title bar. I actually thought it looked better that way. A couple minor aesthetic gripes. I may eventually get used to having the tab bar above the toolbar, though currently it seems pretty funky to me.

    I haven't done a side-by-side comparison with Firefox yet, but my initial rough estimates seem to be that Chrome uses at least 75% as much memory as Firefox, possibly more, and at least as much virtual memory. I find the fact that Chrome has about 40 process running right now to be rather awkward, but hopefully it at least means that when i start closing large numbers of tabs that the memory will actually be released (unlike Firefox.)

    The biggest problem however is the tab bar. Personally i don't like having new tabs open in the middle of the bar, screwing up the ordering, but it was easy to find an extension to fix that behavior. However if you open up a lot of tabs they just get smaller and smaller until you can't see what each of them is anymore. And to my further frustration there's no way to access a list of the tabs. There are a couple extensions that offer some kind of tab index, but nothing that presents a simple list like in Firefox.

    After a little searching i found out the reason for these problems in a Chromium blog post. [chromium.org] The designers are approaching the UI design from a heavily aesthetic angle. Which is good in theory, but they're also being fanatical about it. If they don't think a feature is aesthetically correct but can't think of a more aesthetically pleasing way to implement it they just won't implement the feature at all, even though they admit that the lack of that feature causes usability problems!

    And to wrap it all up, they say "In all of these areas we've resisted adding options to control behavior. Keeping our set of options minimal is a good forcing function for us as user interface designers to come up with the right approach, since we never rely on the crutch of making the user decide what we were unable to."

    Well i hate to tell you guys, but it doesn't seem to be working really well as a "forcing function" given that you've crippled an important part of the UI while dithering about what the "best" way to implement it is. The blog post was made a year ago and they apparently still haven't found a solution! And i find it very aggravating that they feel once they've come up with the "right" approach they don't want to provide options to do it any other way. Clearly if the user has a different aesthetic sense than the designer then the user is wrong! I've dealt with designers like this on projects before, and trying to convince them that the users can legitimately have a different opinion is a very frustrating task.

    I remember the painful process of Firefox developers trying to get their tab bar into a useful state under similar circumstances. Perhaps their solution isn't 100% aesthetically appealing to the Chrome designers, but it undeniably _works_, and leaving the users hanging while they try to figure out something more "aesthetically" and "spatially" pleasing seems like pure egotism to me.

    • Re:That's good, but work on usability too please (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 30, 2010 @12:18AM (#30959318)

      I like this post, it's critical but constructive and well thought out.

      It's also wrong. I don't like to nit pick at each point separately but your complain with chrome is basically you don't like how it looks. That's fine an all but we all know you won't please everyone.

      I like that there is no title bar, I like the way tabs open. The memory that chrome uses is excellent, simply because you can get it back. I could go into length about how you might have measured the memory wrong or why it doesn't matter or how clever it uses it but.

      I feel the important thing to remember is now that there is so much choice, pick what you like. Trying to get aesthetics changed is impossible because someone else is going to complain, you need to think about the reasons for the changes, e.g.

      No title(full) bar? - If your using a widescreen view, and extra 20-30px that bar takes up pretty much needlessly is great, and no status bar at the bottom.

      That's the example I'm going with anyway.

      Want to know the killer feature for me? Closing tabs. closing multiple tabs means leaving your mous over the X, clicking the correct amount of times. Firefox I've got to click twice the amount because it ignores the second click for some reason if it's over the X already, and if the tabs resize i've gotta move my mouse and onto the X again. Yes I find this annoying.

      • Re:That's good, but work on usability too please (Score:2)

        by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Saturday January 30, 2010 @01:06AM (#30959562)
        I should have put the "A couple minor aesthetic gripes. I may eventually get used to [them]" part at the top of the paragraph talking about aesthetic stuff, that was bad editing on my part and confused things, sorry.

        I agree with you that they can't fix the aesthetics to please everyone. I'm hoping that changes like that will be something that's easy to implement in extensions later.

        The part i'm more concerned about is the usability issues i talked about further down, particularly in regard to tabs. Like you said, they've improved some part of the tab interface in regards to Firefox. The fact that they then turned around and rejected usability features that Firefox perfected a long time ago in the hopes of _eventually_ implementing something better and more aesthetically pleasing is not okay in my book. If they had a way to handle large numbers of tabs other than a sliding tab bar and a drop down index that might be a little frustrating to those of us who preferred the old way, but it would be bearable. Getting rid of the old way but not replacing it with anything is just maddening, as is insisting that they're not going to add options because giving us a choice would indicate they had failed to find the "one true way." It is unrealistic, and somewhat hubristic, to believe that there is actually a "one true way" that is perfect for _everyone_ and that they will be the ones to find it.

  • Chrome 4? (Score:1)

    by anexkahn ( 935249 ) on Friday January 29, 2010 @02:40PM (#30952962) Homepage
    By this time next year we will be on Chrome Version 17!

Slashdot Top Deals

Eureka! -- Archimedes

Close