3 ms·

Google's Chrome leaves another hackathon unscathed

12 points by cadalac 17y ago

teilo 17y ago
Horribly bad article. Completely fails to note that this year, just like last year, nobody even attempted to hack Chrome. Where they too scared to try? Hardly. More like, they weren't going to waste their time on a browser with the smallest market share. The headline might as well have been "Links leaves another hackathon unscathed." It's just as accurate. What about Flock? Camino? Opera?
- papachito 17y ago
  Chrome has more market share than Safari, nice try.
- dschobel 17y ago
  The article addresses the market share argument: And that's not just because [Chrome] has small market share (5.6% according to Net Applications) Apple's Safari's market share is actually smaller, around 4.5%, and yet has fallen every year at Pwn2Own.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    That conflates Safari's market share with Apple's, since Safari is also the primary attack vector for OS X.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
- wendroid 17y ago
  pwning Chrome would give you more Kudos than pwning either of the other two. "IE on Windows was owned, yawn"
- sundarurfriend 17y ago
  Regardless of market share, is there any real evidence that nobody tried to hack Chrome? Do they maintain any statistics for such things, or were you just assuming so from its market share?
tptacek 17y ago
How do you write this graf: But given Google's high profile and the fact that the Pwn2Own competitors failed to hack Chrome two years running, we imagine that Chrome has to be gaining a sort of "sword-in-the-stone"-type reputation among security researchers. almost immediately after writing this one? Naysayers will also point out that Google patched 11 flaws in its browser just before the competition began. But Apple patched 19 bugs in Safari the same week, and that didn't prevent Apple hacker Charlie Miller from doing evil things to it for the third year in a row.
- invisible 17y ago
  The second (in order) sentence is referring to finding flaws, not flaws existing (which the first sentence was referring to). The sword exists - being able to wield it and manipulate it freely is the treasure. Also, the article does not explain the severity of the flaws - all 11 could have been simple bug fixes for all we know without research.
bryanh 17y ago
I tend to think that Google Chrome wasn't so much meant to be a super-secure browser for today but a pseudo OS for tomorrow...

12 points by cadalac 17y ago

teilo 17y ago

Horribly bad article. Completely fails to note that this year, just like last year, nobody even attempted to hack Chrome. Where they too scared to try? Hardly. More like, they weren't going to waste their time on a browser with the smallest market share. The headline might as well have been "Links leaves another hackathon unscathed." It's just as accurate. What about Flock? Camino? Opera?

papachito 17y ago
Chrome has more market share than Safari, nice try.
dschobel 17y ago
The article addresses the market share argument: And that's not just because [Chrome] has small market share (5.6% according to Net Applications) Apple's Safari's market share is actually smaller, around 4.5%, and yet has fallen every year at Pwn2Own.
- tptacek 17y ago
  That conflates Safari's market share with Apple's, since Safari is also the primary attack vector for OS X.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
wendroid 17y ago
pwning Chrome would give you more Kudos than pwning either of the other two. "IE on Windows was owned, yawn"
sundarurfriend 17y ago
Regardless of market share, is there any real evidence that nobody tried to hack Chrome? Do they maintain any statistics for such things, or were you just assuming so from its market share?

tptacek 17y ago

How do you write this graf: But given Google's high profile and the fact that the Pwn2Own competitors failed to hack Chrome two years running, we imagine that Chrome has to be gaining a sort of "sword-in-the-stone"-type reputation among security researchers. almost immediately after writing this one? Naysayers will also point out that Google patched 11 flaws in its browser just before the competition began. But Apple patched 19 bugs in Safari the same week, and that didn't prevent Apple hacker Charlie Miller from doing evil things to it for the third year in a row.

invisible 17y ago
The second (in order) sentence is referring to finding flaws, not flaws existing (which the first sentence was referring to). The sword exists - being able to wield it and manipulate it freely is the treasure. Also, the article does not explain the severity of the flaws - all 11 could have been simple bug fixes for all we know without research.

bryanh 17y ago

I tend to think that Google Chrome wasn't so much meant to be a super-secure browser for today but a pseudo OS for tomorrow...