Chrome OS Remains Undefeated At Pwnium 3 178
hypnosec writes "Google has announced that its Chrome OS has managed to remain undefeated during the Pwnium 3 event that was held alongside Pwn2Own. Announced by Google on January 28, 2013 the Pwnium 3 event carried a prize money of $3.14 million. Researchers were asked to carry out attacks against a base Samsung Series 5 chromebook running the latest stable version of Chrome OS. It turns out security researchers were not able to come up with winning exploits even after the competition's deadline was extended. Google Chrome Team has revealed that partial exploit entries have been filled in but, no other details have been released."
OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The OS doesn't really do anything. It's a glorified web browser.
I'd be more impressed with OpenBSD not being hacked, and even that is essentially just an init process and sshd.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You say that like it's a bad thing. A glorified web browser with incredible security is exactly what a good amount of people should be using. Hell, I know someone who would get along fine if their computer did nothing but Facebook, let alone the rest of the web.
I find it hard to believe (though it's getting easier) that even geeks who have trouble seeing the world outside their little techy bubble can complain about this. I've seen the idea of an internet "driver's license" come up on these boards but then something that protects people from themselves is shit all over. Well done.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe because some of us are still proponents of 'computers', not content-sipping machines. Awareness of computing means more than getting work done or being entertained, it also involves some learning about the nature of how we do these things can and should change over time. Combined with ideas of open access this is important issue; we should all at least be aware of our ability to govern our processing needs, whether we enjoy the idea or not.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Typical geek-elitist drivel. For some (myself included) sure it's important to understand the nature of how computers do things. What you seem to fail to see, or are in denial about, is that computers have become ubiquitous appliances, and the average user doesn't give a shit about the 'nature of how we do these things.' They just want it to work.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. Most people don't even have a clue how the light in their room comes on when they flip the switch and could care less about electricity as long as when they flip the switch the light comes on. Almost no one knows anything about internal combustion that drives a car daily they just know that when you turn the key it should start. The how and why is beyond them. Computers are even more complex to these people and it's crazy to think they'll ever know or care how they work.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet most people understand electicity well enough to not stick bits of wire in the lightbulb socket.
Should people know what a CPU is? No. Should they understand that giving a program administrative access means you're giving it full control of all your private information? Yes.
Re: OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:2)
No, the average user should not have to understand what an administrative user is. No one outside of geekdom cares about different types of users. Compare it to a VCR, would you expect average users to log in as admin to. VCR? No. And computers are going the same route, thet are expected to just work, no fuss.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Should they understand that giving a program administrative access means you're giving it full control of all your private information? Yes.
No. That's like saying that anyone who needs to drive a car need to understand how the choke works. The choke. Remember that? Back in the 1980s and earlier when you learned to drive, you had to learn to use it to start your car when the engine was cold. It altered the fuel/air mix by means of a valve in the carburettor. Everyone had to know what you needed to do with the choke, but only a minority knew what it was doing inside the engine. It became automated and then obsoleted when fuel injection replaced carburettors. In the modern car, the computer (engine management system) performs the same action of making a richer air/fuel mix when the engine is cold. And very few people realise that's happening.
That's the proper use of a computer in a consumer product. To reduce the amount of detail the user has to know about.
Consumers should not be expected to know about types of users. Ideally they shouldn't need to know the concept of user accounts at. The computer should just know who's operating them, and what they should have access to in the same way that a human clerk would. For the moment that may require credentials (bank card/username and pin/password) but biometrics that are more secure than that are probably not so far away.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The responsibility for knowing how your car works, or ensuring your electricity functions correctly has been taken out of your hands and is handled by the people who made the vehicle or the house.
I've recently read an article here how people are not smart enough to handle democracy. Is further removal of opportunities for people to exercise their brain cells from their lives and classrooms really such a good idea? Personally I've always cherished knowledge, even if it wasn't of immediate value. You're saying that like being clueless is somehow a virtue nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not kid ourselves. Most Slashdot readers don't really know how computers work either. (At least not beyond screwing the parts together and blundering their way through various installers.)
Well, let's throw some carrots then. FPGAs [wikipedia.org] are a good, modern and fun way learn about digital technology. You use VHDL or Verilog to describe your hardware. Combine that with a general electronics hobby and along the way I'm sure you will be enlightened on how computers work. Try this stuff if it sounds interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's throw some carrots then. FPGAs [wikipedia.org] are a good, modern and fun way learn about digital technology. You use VHDL or Verilog to describe your hardware.
Uff, for basic understanding of digital technology, a nice visual tile-based simulator of raw silicon and a library of basic CMOS cells could be even nicer. Just paste the things on the screen, connect them with metallic interconnects and press "play". And people would have to learn neither VHDL, nor Verilog. (You weren't talking about VLSI+ scale circuitry, were you?)
Re: (Score:3)
While I'm a proponent of "if you can't design your own processor, you shouldn't be permitted to run one"(and yes, I have) I'll be the first to admit it is a stupid unpractical philosophy. Still, it is nice to dream... :P
Re: (Score:3)
No-one's saying that all computers should be "content-sipping machines", just that such machines should be available to those who only ever sip content and want to remain absolutely clueless about how they work, rather than them get their shit exploited because they don't (and probably never will) know how to secure something themselves. "Proper" computers and operating systems should still be available to those of us who want them and can handle the responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Use the right tool for the right job you idiot.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe because some of us are still proponents of 'computers', not content-sipping machines. Awareness of computing means more than getting work done or being entertained, it also involves some learning about the nature of how we do these things can and should change over time.
So my mother who does nothing but play games and email should have a general purpose computer because you think a device should do more than just suck content?
we should all at least be aware of our ability to govern our processing needs, whether we enjoy the idea or not.
Yet you just said that everyone needs more than just content machines. My mom is aware of her needs, yet you want to force something more on her...
I am a developer. Unlike the masses, I need a general purpose computer. There will always be a market for them no matter how much we flood the market will less versatile devices like tablets and smartphones (which is where I believe the market is heading.)
For personal use, many people do not need a full computer, lets give them something simpler that better fits their needs. Even some business purposes can be done on a tablet now. Why should we force them to buy something more?
25 years ago would you have suggested that we all continue to use dumb terminals hooked up to mainframes? The modern computer decimated the market for mainframes, supercomputers, and minicomputers. Today, the market share of these large and powerful machines is significantly diminished, yet they still exist for the people have a need for them that a normal computer can not fulfill.
Plain and simple, not everyone needs a "computer" just because you think that they do. There will be a need for them and computers will not go extinct, but fewer and fewer people (as a percentage) will have that need and smaller devices will displace computers in the market.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is 'computers' are far too complex devices for the average end user, it is irresponsible to let most people connect such a complex device to a public resource when they have no idea how it works.
Content-sipping machines managed by a third party are what the average user should have, 'computers' should be reserved for geeks who understand how to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with that attitude is that, taken to its logical conclusion, you'll end up with a permanent underclass of users who'll never know how to operate a Real Computer because they will never be exposed to one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like you have a permanent underclass of people who don't know how to service cars, or build houses, or etc etc.
Back in the days this "underclass" as you call it simply didn't use computers at all.
Kids can be exposed to proper computers in school, and decide for themselves if they want to learn anything about them or not. There will always be a few geeks who actually are interested.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because some of us are still proponents of 'computers', not content-sipping machines.
Well, there's always the programmer switch on the devices; however, I have to say I know some Russian and Chinese hackers who really, really like everyone having general purpose computers with poor security so they can run their botnets.
Re: (Score:2)
We can do what we want, but other people do not have those needs or desires.
Most people only want to consume content. If they have a machine for that which is less likely to be taken over and used in botnets etc, the better for the rest of us. That sort of end user cannot be improved, but they can be sold equipment which suits them.
Re: (Score:3)
you should know *exactly* what that magneto does.
Good advice for drivers in the 1930's...
Re: (Score:2)
So the operator must balance breaking force and make dynamic adjustments to compensate for many variables. During the braking procedure your force balance will change.
Sure. By how much? You are applying force to one with your fingers, and the other with your foot, using different length levers, and possibly even different brake types front and rear. (Disk/drum). You have no way of knowing how much force you're applying, you can only guess and learn through the trial and error of actually skidding with one wheel or the other.
I've not been a biker for 20 years, so I'm not sure how far bike brakes have progressed, but car brakes on mass market cars have improved tremendousl
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. This is the exact topic of one part of The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. One of the most thought provoking books ever written.
Re: (Score:2)
P.P.S. Zen and...
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what's important to note is that "nobody" uses ChromeOS. This means "nobody" researches bugs for it very hard (even thus its relatively well secured, actually).
All that too say, "nobody pwned haiku either"
Re: (Score:3)
ChromeOS shares enough similarities with Linux and the Chrome browser that people will already have a decent level of familiarity with it... And $3.14 million is a pretty decent incentive to try.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because that story wasn't completely full of out of context bullshit that made it look like it was far more impressive than it was, when in reality it wasn't even a little bit.
Combined Chromebook sales beat sales of SOME single models of other laptops ... of course those other models where in a completely different class and price range, but you know, totally truthful article!
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that's what iPads were for!
Re: (Score:2)
You'll change your tune as soon as your (insert relative or friend here) asks you how to play (insert hot new videogame here) on their Chromebook. What will your advice be - 'Buy an XBox'?
People wanna do stuff on their computers, even the dumb ones...
Re: (Score:2)
It would be "why did you buy a laptop if you want to play games?"
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't 2000... plenty of laptops can game these days. Not an ultrabook, of course, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I know someone who would get along fine if their computer did nothing but Facebook, let alone the rest of the web.
"Announcing... the Facebookbook!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering how fast the various web browsers fall, it *is* impressive. Chrome OS machines are wonderful for giving to clueless relatives who just browse the web.
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:4, Informative)
Gods yes. My father's Chromebook has probably saved him its price already in visits to the computer shop to get viruses removed.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that they all have large teams of people working on this for a YEAR before the competition come right? Not exactly "fast".
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome OS seems geared to those same folks who'd otherwise install trojans, spyware, etc. for the sake of getting an animated cat to chase their cursor. So these users are protected from themselves in not directly hosing their OS from sheer ignorance, and the geeks who purchased these systems might now be lulled into complacency in knowing that they aren't likely to need to LLF the drive and then explain to their relatives where all their funny pictures went...
The problem I foresee is that a user of Chrome
Re: (Score:3)
The OS doesn't really do anything. It's a glorified web browser.
I'd be more impressed with OpenBSD not being hacked, and even that is essentially just an init process and sshd.
It is a bit more interesting because Chrome, the browser, was among the fallen on Windows(not sure if they tested it on OSX).
ChromeOS is, indeed, mostly web browser sitting on top of a sparse-but-nowhere-near-as-weird-as-android linux distribution(Incidentally, might Google be the one to follow through on Mark Andresson's 1995 threat concerning reducing the OS to a collection of poorly debugged device drivers, albeit not the OS he was talking about?); but it wouldn't have struck me as obvious that it would
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's the fact that Chrome only exists (officially) on devices built for/released with it. I'd wager that vulnerabilities would skyrocket if Chrome were turned into a real distro that could run on any hardware, because that would open the door to closed drivers, third-party repositories, etc, etc.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OS that doesn't do anything isn't cracked.. (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference is that Chrome OS is a consumer-grade "thin client". It is aimed mainly at home and educational use, not the big corporate or government use most other thin clients aim for.
As such, yes, it makes sense to compare it to other consumer-grade operating systems. The results won't be quite comparable, as many duties normally handled by the OS are done remotely, in "the cloud", but it's still a worthwhile comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
do they include other thin clients?
Such as?
CromeOS is on laptops that ordinary people can walk in, pick up from store shelves, buy and use right now. Of course it should be compared to Windows and OSX - it's competing with them. And those ordinary people want to know if it's a better choice for their purposes.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Look under the hood. Chrome OS is just as capable of running X11 apps as your off the shelf distro. Granted, it's not designed to so it's difficult to make it do so, damn near impossible (as seen in article) without switching developer mode on.
But, switch developer mode on, turn off rootfs verification, remount as RW, and dump binaries on that it'll happily run. I don't typically categorize thin clients as a system running GNU/Linux w/ X11 support.
I think the ace in the hole for ChromeOS security is that
Re: (Score:2)
That is why I don't understand why its included....do they include other thin clients?
I think you're confusing Pwnium with Pwn2own. Chrome OS was the only thing in the former. The latter did not include any thin clients, just Chrome on Windows, which failed along with every other browser offered for testing on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It seems that ChromeOS is based on hardened gentoo (clues can be found here https://sites.google.com/site/chromeoswikisite/home/what-s-new-in-dev-and-beta/shell-acess-with-verified-boot [google.com]), and hardened gentoo is.... hard (grsec + pax + some kind of MAC mechanism). And while I agree that ChromeOS is very basic, just a browser on top of it. But all other browsers were successfully attacked, it means that the OS has protected the browser.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more impressed with OpenBSD not being hacked, and even that is essentially just an init process and sshd.
At the Pwn2Own 2008 contest Ubuntu was undefeated, and it was thew first and last time a Linux based OS was present at the contest. Well, if you don't include Android and Chrome OS.
Does it do anything at all? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I played with one at Best Buy a couple days ago. I think it comes down to this: Whatever you can do in Chrome (the browser) you can do on that machine.
There are "links" on the tab bar that function as shortcuts to places like gmail, google docs, and whatever. I think they just open up a browser window or tab to that respective place, though.
Re:Does it do anything at all? (Score:4, Informative)
To anyone who wants to play around with it: there are Chromium OS VM builds out there you can play with in VMWare or Virtualbox (legal, it's all opensource).
I tried it out a few weeks ago. It really *is* just a web browser. I have trouble understanding why someone would spent $1300 for a Pixel unless they planned to install a real OS on it. Yeah, I get that the display is nice, but for that kind of money I should be able to... I dunno... maybe run the aforementioned VMWare, like I do now on the $599 laptop I virtualized Chrome (and Win7 and PC-BSD) on. And played Portal on, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. I'm pretty sure there's a graveyard somewhere with the bones of all the companies who thought a browser would make a perfectly good OS and did not realize their mistake in time.
Odds are good that Chrome OS will fail to gai
Re: (Score:3)
For a lot of people, the interfaces they use on a daily basis have already been written in HTML and CSS...
I know many people who use a computer for:
email (webmail)
facebook
twitter
occasional searches for information via google
im (usually the one provided by facebook)
porn
All of these are usable via chromeos right now, and enable someone to just get on with it without having to worry about malware or keeping their os up to date (or even caring what an os is).
Re: (Score:2)
No, such a device would be terrible for your 7 year old, as would any modern mac, windows box or most user oriented linux distros. A young child needs to be exposed to a device they can learn about in detail, but also on thats safe and cannot be broken.
A Chromebook is perfect for adults who have no interest in learning about computers, and who only want to use them for basic tasks (such as those i listed), who don't want to learn how the system works and don't want to worry about installing updates, fixing
Re: (Score:2)
Things that take fifteen seconds in Interface Builder can take hours or even days to do correctly with HTML/CSS, assuming you're designing to accommodate variably sized browser windows.
Not really a fair comparison, considering that there are no authoring tools worth mentioning for HTML5/CCS. Or, to rephrase that: would it still take 15 seconds to do the same things if you'd have to code everything yourself?
RT.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it would take less time to programmatically build an Objective-C UI than it does to do HTML/CSS, too, though I'll admit I haven't done much of that. HTML/CSS has more moving parts, but not the right moving parts for building user interfaces.
With a Cocoa or UIKit UI, you get to define how objects stretch, how they are aligned, etc. Everything is designed under the assumption that element size can change, and the layout must do something sensible.
With HTML/CSS, in contrast, you have to eith
Re: (Score:2)
Err... a few months ago. This is what happens when you say "couple of" and then decide that five or six months stretches the meaning of that phrase a bit too much. *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just setup a true ESXi server? (Score:2)
You could build a really nice server with the $1,100 left over after buying a $199 Acer Chromebook. A Pixel in this paradigm is the dick to the balls.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried it out a few weeks ago. It really *is* just a web browser. I have trouble understanding why someone would spent $1300 for a Pixel unless they planned to install a real OS on it.
The price of the Chrome Pixel is minus $500 for some people (that's right, it's a negative number for some).
The people that are already paying $1,800 every three years for Google cloud storage get that three year subscription for free if they buy a Pixel at $1,300. Essentially, the Pixel is a loss leader for CEOs, or CTO, or the tech manager making the purchase decisions. Personally, I don't know anyone else who would use so much cloud storage in the first place except businesses. I suppose they're probably
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing at all, and there's no reason you shouldn't, if you're buying it just for the hardware. But they're obviously not selling it just for the hardware, otherwise they'd preinstall it with a real OS, or no OS at all. They're selling it as a really fancy Chromebook - that's the sales pitch here - but at this point there's not a lot you can do with a Chromebook that's fancy enough to justify $1300 other than look at media on a really pretty screen.
In short, it's not the $1300 for the hardware that is wacky
Re: (Score:3)
In short, if you're spending $1300 for a laptop to put Linux on, you can do better - a MacBook would be a better deal, in terms of what hardware you get for the money.
Perhaps it would be a better deal, but do you not understand that there are a significant number of people who refuse to give Apple any money?
For us, the Chromebook Pixel is that machine for which we have been waiting several years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm one of them. Was just making a hardware/price comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Previous pwn2own contests have required someone on the notebook to open a URL emailed to them in order to initiate the attack. It is unclear form this article what the rules where in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
The keyboard, which you could log if you compromised the host.
Re:Does it do anything at all? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does it do anything at all? (Score:4, Informative)
Posting this from my series 5. :)
It runs Ubuntu/Xubuntu 13.04 quite nicely booting off an SD card. You'd be hard pressed to get a better laptop for the money, and it's massively more useful than any table I've ever used.
Re:Does it do anything at all? (Score:5, Funny)
Tablet, I mean. It's not as useful as a table.
Re:Does it do anything at all? (Score:5, Funny)
Be careful. That typo set Microsoft's Surface tablet project back several years.
Attack surface reduction at it's finest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good one!
Re: (Score:2)
Only it has a browser, exactly the thing that was successfully cracked in the other contests.
Don't overvalue this (Score:4, Insightful)
It only means that Chrome OS is not too badly engineered. As Chrome OS is pretty new, the number of people that had an in-depth look will be smaller. As it is quite a bit different from other OSes and offers a lot less functionality on the application side, other approaches may be required to crack it.
One could object to that that the kernel is still Linux. True, but the Linux kernel is one tough nut to crack. Even local exploits are in the vast majority not kernel-based, but some application messing up. If they are kernel based, it is typically a specific driver. I do not remember any remote exploits for the kernel at all in the last few years, except one in an exotic network protocol, and Chrome OS has no reason to enable anything in that class.
So while this is a good initial result, do not overvalue it. It is possible that Chrome OS gets broken in the next few years when people get more experience with it. Die to its limited functionality, it is also possible that it will remain very hard to break into or that nobody manages it. Personally, I would welcome a main-stream secure browsing solution establishing itself, but remember that you cannot do most things with Chrome OS that you can do with other OSes.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of experience? ChromeOS is a subset of linux, people are already sufficiently familiar with the parts of linux it does include.
Yes there have been bugs in the linux kernel, but remember that most distribution kernels are generic builds with a large number of drivers and functionality available. If you configure your own kernel, you can turn off what you don't need and this is what google will have done with chromeos. The basic common functionality will be well debugged and see a lot less code churn.
Maybe Google can focus on Android security now... (Score:2)
Or at least the Chrome OS developers could give the Android developers a few pointers...
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/03/07/apple-android-malware/ [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
OMFG MALWARES! sigh ...
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fsecure.ms.dc&hl=en [google.com]
that's f-secure's (the authors of the report) mobile app that costs $10.58. you think it's just coincidence that it's always someone with a product to sell that's behind these reports?
Re: (Score:2)
It's an "OS" (Score:2, Informative)
Chrome OS is more barebones than my phone.
Security is good now, but there's a reason for tha (Score:2)
I wonder what will happen in another 15 years. When the "win95 generation" moves in to upper management and the "relatively virus free win7/osx generation" starts designing and managing their own pay-software.
The current crop of software devs dealt with stuxnet, *worm and all that other crap. They probably dealt with it on their parent's computers, their grand parents and neighbors. Designing secure, web connected software is in their interests.
Will the next generation of developers who ente
Re: (Score:2)
I think the kids going through middle school now will be fine. When i was a kid there was no such thing as malware or fishing. It was worms and viruses. Spam was so rare that filters didn't exist. We didn't have wifi and didn't have to worry about wardrivers. The internet wasn't something you could carry in your pocket. We didn't have social media, we had Geocities.
I agree with you that their concerns will be different. But i don't think it will lead to completely insecure programming.
I just bought a chrome book last week. (Score:5, Informative)
But what about off line? Google docs off line lets you edit documents and presentations off line. They sync when you get the connection. When it first came it had no off line edits. Then they have introduced doc and presentations. Spreadsheets would be next I guess. Or may be not. Gmail offline can be customized to keep last so many days worth of email in the local cache. Google calender works off line, ( I think, need to go back and check.).
Off line music player works, off line video play back works. Source of the media could be the internal drive or any USB drive, including the USB powered hard disks. Kindle off line reader works, three books cached very quickly. Apps exist like "Read this link later" that works off line.
So off line, you can watch video, listen to music, read books, cached web pages. You will have read/access to all the google drive docs. And write access to docs and presentations. I think for 200$ it is way more than what I expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, thank you for your review. You successfully explained what it's like to own. Sounds like a good box for entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Boots very fast, less than 20 sec. Sleeps / wakes up instantly. Battery lasted three hours. No click buttons or scroll bars in the touch mouse pad. Two finger touch and click is "right click". Two finger click and one finger move is click-and-drag. Two finger swipe is scroll. What does one finger swipe do? Highlight maybe. Not sure. Functions keys to cycle through browser windows, full screen/part screen, back
Prehacked (Score:4, Insightful)
Chrome OS is prehacked. It comes installed with a trojan/bot which collects all your information and sends it to Google.
Misread the title. (Score:2)
I read the title as "Chrome OS Remains Undefeated On A Pentium 3".
That would have been more interesting!
So many uninformed comments (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, all those things probably don't matter. They probably don't play any role in exploits that work on Windows-based Chrome failing on Chrome OS. It's not more inherently secure than any other OS, riiiggghhhhhttttt
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's a question of "what the end user sees". So far it boils down to:
-Everything your browser can do (while connected to the web).
-Ability to play media online and offline (from another commenter).
-Very strong system security.
The /. crowd have a problem because they can't fire up actual applications or games like Quake 4 - I'm guessing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Implementing a sophisticated sandbox to run native code will actually add the possibility of an exploit not reduce it. If ChromeOS stuck with traditional web apps then I think the OS will remain relatively secure. However once you try to run native applications within the browser, you are opening the OS to the possibility of exploits. Sophisticated code is not always a good thing. The sandbox is sophisticated since securing native code is hard, not because it's an attribute that Google strived for.
I won't
By George, I think I've got it! (Score:2)
So Chrome will show my what Google wants me to see much faster than Firefox will show me what I want to see.
Whilst that is impressive... (Score:3)
Nice publicity stunt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A router only to wifi to the Chrome OS and no active prevention measures (human intervention). If it's still standing securely after that time then I'll be impressed. Until then this is just great advertisement for the Chrome OS and nothing more.
To the best of my knowledge, Chrome OS doesn't listen on any ports out of the box. Even DMZing it would do nothing, because there's nothing for attackers to connect to. Perhaps you should learn more about Chrome OS before you come up with ideas like this.
Researchers is a broad term and the conditions kept many away.
Which explains why everything else there was broken, right? Nope, wait, also complete nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
A router only to wifi to the Chrome OS and no active prevention measures (human intervention).
If it's still standing securely after that time then I'll be impressed. Until then this is just great
advertisement for the Chrome OS and nothing more.
To the best of my knowledge, Chrome OS doesn't listen on any ports out of the box. Even DMZing it would do nothing, because there's nothing for attackers to connect to. Perhaps you should learn more about Chrome OS before you come up with ideas like this.
The rules call for wifi access only to the Chrome OS the router is to connect to that wifi from the outside.
Re: (Score:2)